0 
0 
0 


0 

8 
5 
8 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SAN  DIEGO 


3  1822  02705  6217 


I 


^'BRARY 


^^  OlEGO 


OF 


lllllliri^l'llllll?l'„9^V,^.0f"^'A.SAN 


3  1822  02705  6217 


DIEGO 


7A 


SEMICENTENNIAL  PUBLICATIONS 


OF  THE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


1868-1918 


a, 


a 


3 

fe 


THE   GREEK   THEATER 
OF   THE   FIFTH   CENTURY   BEFORE    CHRIST 

BY 

JAMES  TURNEY  ALLEN 


•I 


PREFACE 

The  following  pages  were  written  under  great  pressure  during 
the  troubled  months  of  the  summer  of  1918.  For  many  years 
the  problem  of  the  reconstruction  of  the  fifth-century  theater  at 
Athens  had  had  for  me  a  strange  fascination.  No  matter  how  far 
afield  I  might  wander  or  how  hopeless  the  quest  might  appear, 
invariabl}'  I  found  myself  yielding  again  to  its  spell  and  returning 
wdth  new  devotion  to  the  tasks  which  it  imposed.  But  the  way 
led  through  a  baffling  intricacy  of  conjectures  from  which  escape 
seemed  forever  barred.  At  length,  however,  in  the  spring  of 
last  year  I  suddenly  realized  that  a  clue  to  guide  one  out  of  a 
portion  at  least  of  this  labyrinth  of  uncertainty  had  long  been  at 
hand,  albeit  unrecognized. 

The  nature  of  this  clue  is  set  forth  in  chapter  3,  and  its  dis- 
covery constitutes,  as  I  still  believe,  a  substantial  advance  in  our 
knowledge  of  the  theater  of  the  fifth  century.  But  it  is  doubtless 
too  much  to  expect  that  all  of  the  conclusions  drawn  therefrom 
will  find  general  acceptance,  particularly  the  attempted  recon- 
struction of  the  Sophoclean  scene-building  (Fig.  31),  regarding 
which  I  myself  entertain  many  a  misgiving.  Quite  apart,  how- 
ever, from  the  particular  thesis  which  I  have  sought  to  defend  and 
the  arguments  adduced  in  its  support,  the  discussion  of  the  various 
theories  regarding  the  early  theater  which  have  been  advanced 
during  the  past  thirty  years  will  perhaps  be  not  without  value 
both  to  the  general  reader  and  to  the  student  who  may  be  seeking 
a  guide  to  the  hterature  of  this  highly  technical  subject.  The 
timely  appearance  of  Professor  Flickinger's  able  book  The  Greek 
Theater  and  Its  Drama  (University  of  Chicago  Press,  May,  1918) 
rendered  unnecessary  a  full  discussion  of   many  matters  which 


vi  PREFACE 

would  otherwise  have  been  included.  But  the  resulting  brevity 
of  the  argument  is  no  doubt  a  distinct  advantage. 

I  wish  to  thank  the  University  of  Chicago  Press  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  reproducing  a  portion  of  figure  74  of  Professor  Flick- 
inger's  book  (Fig.  22).  I  am  indebted  also  to  the  generosity  of 
WiUiam  Heinemann,  London  (G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  New  York), 
for  permission  to  quote  from  Dr.  A.  S.  Way's  admirable  transla- 
tion of  Euripides  in  the  Loeb  Classical  Library;  also  to  George 
Bell  and  Sons,  London,  for  a  similar  favor  with  reference  to  the 
equally  able  translation  of  Aristophanes  by  Dr.  B.  B.  Rogers. 

Finally,  I  regret  that  as  yet  I  have  been  unable  to  procure  a 
copy  of  Romagnoh's  II  Teatro  Greco  (Milan,  1918),  but  from 
reviews  which  I  have  seen  I  infer  that  the  author  does  not  treat  in 
detail  the  problem  to  which  this  brief  monograph  is  devoted.  I  re- 
gret also  that  I  have  not  seen  either  Frickenhaus'  Die  altgriechische 
Buhne  or  Dorpf eld's  reply  published  in  Wochenschrift  fur  klassische 
Philologie,  1918. 

Bebkeley,  California, 
May  12,  1919. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

I.  Introduction     .....•• 

II.  The  Fourth-century  Theater  at  Athens     . 

III.  The  Theater  of  the  Fifth  Century     . 

IV.  The  Evidence  of  the  Dramas         ... 
V.  Changes  of  the  Setting  .... 

VI.     How  were  the  Changes  of  the  Setting  Effected  ? 

Theories     ....••• 
VII.     The  Alleged  Frothyron  of  the  Vase-paintings 
VIII.     The  Origin  of  the  Proskenion 


Various 


PAGE 
1 


20 
43 
69 

79 

95 

107 


Vll 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGE 

1.  The  theater  at  Epidaurus  (from  a  photograph)         .         .         Frontispiece 

2.  Plan  of  the  theater  at  Thoricus  (from  Dorpfeld  und  Reisch,  Das 

griechische  Theater,  figure  43)     .......         2 

3.  Gateway  in  the  theater  at  Epidaurus,  restored  (from  UpaKTiKo.  ttjs  ev 

'AdiqvaLS  dpxa-i-o\oyiKT]s  eraipias  for  1883)        .....  3 

4.  The  theater  at  Athens  (from  a  photograph)      .         .         .         facing  4 

5.  The  theater  at  Priene  (from  a  photograph)       .         .         .        facing  6 

6.  Phm  of  the  fourth-century  theater  and  the  precinct  of  Dionysus 

Eleuthereus  at  Athens  (after  Dorpfeld,  Das  griechische  Theater, 
Tafel  2,  modified)     .......         facing         8 

7.  Facade  of  one  of  the  paraskenia  of  the  Lycurgean  theater  (after 

Fiechter,   Baugeschichtliche  Entwicklung  des  antiken   Theaters, 
figure  12) 9 

8.  Ground  plan  of  the  fifth-century  skene  of  the  theater  at  Athens  as  con- 

jecturally  restored  by  Fiechter,  op.  ciL,  figure  14        ...       11 

9.  Ground  plan  of  the  fourth-century  skene  of  the  theater  at  Athens 

as  restored  by  Dorpfeld,  op.  cit.,  Tafel  2  .         .         .         .         .12 

10.  Ground  plan  of  the  fourth-century  skene  of  the  theater  at  Athens 

as  restored  by  Fiechter,  op.  cit.,  figure  15  .         .         .         .         .13 

11.  Front  elevation  of  the  scene-building  of  the  theater  at  Oropus  as  re- 

stored by   Fiechter,  op.  cit.,  figure  2    .        .         .         .         .         .14 

12.  The  scene-building  of  the  theater  at  Athens  (first  half  of  the  fourth 

century)  as  restored  by  Fiechter,  op.  cit.,  figure  63    .         facing       14 

13.  Ground  plan  of  the  Hellenistic  scene-building  at  Athens,  as  restored 

by  Dorpfeld,  op.  cit.,  figure  26  .         .         .         .         .         .         .15 

14.  Plan  showing  the  remains  of  the  theater  at  Athens  in  the  fifth  cen- 

tury (after  Dorpfeld,  op.  cit.,  Tafel  3) 21 

15.  Portion  of  the  retaining  wall  of  the  old  orchestra-terrace   (after 

Dorpfeld,  op.  cit.,  figure  6)  .......       22 

16.  Conjectural  restoration  of  the  theater  at  Athens  before  the  erection 

of  the  scene-building  (photograph  from  a  model)      .        facing      22 

ix 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 


17.  Cross  section  of  the  theater  at  Athens,  showing  the  orchestra,  the 

position  of  tlie  old  temple  of  Dionj'sus  and  the  difference  in 
gradients  of  the  Aeschylean  and  the  Lycurgean  theaters  (in 
part  after  Dorpfeld,  op.  cit.,  figure  7)         .....       24 

18.  Stone  with  inscription  found  in  the  theater  at  Athens      ...       25 

19.  Plans  to  illustrate  different  theories  regarding  the  position  of  the 

scene-building  in  the  early  theater 29 

20.  Plan  showing  the  relation  of  the  fifth-century  theater  at  Athens  to 

that  of  the  fourth  century  .   •      .         .         .         .         .         .30 

21 .  Plan  to  illustrate  the  conjectural  direction  of  the  parodi  and  the  front 

of  the  auditorium  of  the  Aeschylean  theater      ....       33 

22.  The  scene-l)uilding  of  the  early  fifth-century  theater  as  restored  by 

Flickinger,  The  Greek  Tfieatcr  and  its  Drama,  figure  74      .         .84 

23.  The  scene-building  of   the   fifth-century   theater  as   restored   by 

Dorpfeld  (Cybulski,  Tab.  12) facing      95 

24.  Vase-painting  representing   the   vengeance   of   Medea ;     from   the 

Medea-vase  at  Munich  (Baumeister,  Denkmaler,  figure  980)     .       96 

25.  Vase-painting  showing  the  palace  of  Pluto  and  Persephone  and 

scenes  in  the  underworld  (Furtwangler  u.  Reichhold,  Griechische 
Vasenmalerei,  Taf.  10)       ......        facing       99 

26.  Vase-painting  based  on  a  scene  in  the  Iphige7iia  among  the  Taurians ; 

from  an  amphora  at  Petrograd  {Monnmenti  deW  Instituto,  VI, 
Tav.  66) 100 

27.  Vase-painting  from  the  Antigone-vase  at  Ruvo  (Baumeister,  Denk- 

maler, figure  88)         .........     102 

28.  Vase-painting  from  the  Archemorus-vase  at  Naples  (Baumeister, 

op.  cit.,  figure  120) 103 

29.  The  death  of  Meleager  as  depicted  on  a  vase  at  Naples  {Archaeolo- 

gische  Zeiiung,  1867,  Taf.  220) 105 

30.  Niobe  and  her  daughter,   from  a  painting  on  marble  found  at 

Pompeii  {Halliaches  Winckelmannaprogra^nrn,  no.  24)        facing     108 

31.  Conjectural  reconstruction  of  the  scene-building  at  Athens  toward 

the  close  of  the  fifth  century 113 


THE   GREEK   THEATER   OF   THE   FIFTH 
CENTURY  BEFORE   CHRIST 


INTRODUCTION 

Every  Greek  theater  consisted  normally  of  three  parts :  or- 
chestra, auditorium,  and  scene-building.  But  these  component 
elements,  though  essential  to  the  perfected  structure,  were  co- 
joined  by  a  process  of  accretion  and  never  in  the  Hellenic  type 
cohered  to  form  a  single  architectural  unit. 

The  auditorium  {diarpov)  was  the  most  conspicuous  of  these 
members,  and  in  the  majority  of  instances  still  remains  the  most 
prominent  and  impressive  feature  of  the  theaters  whose  ruins 
dot  the  landscape  of  the  Hellenic  world.  Although  usually 
somewhat  larger  than  a  semicircle  and  otherwise  symmetrical, 
the  auditorium  was  sometimes  quite  irregular  in  shape,  as  in  the 
theaters  at  Delos  and  at  Athens  and  in  the  tiny  and  wholly  unique 
theater  in  the  village  of  Thoricus  on  the  southeastern  coast  of 
Attica  (Fig.  2).  Opposite  the  auditorium  stood  the  skene  {a-Kr^vq) 
or  scene-building,^  which  served  as  a  background  for  the  actors 
and  provided  accommodations  for  dressing  rooms  and  for  the 
storing  of  various  stage  properties.  This  structure  was  seldom, 
if  ever,  more  than  two  stories  in  height  -  and  was  of  a  rectangular 
shape,  and  was  connected  with  the  auditorium,  if  at  all,  only  by 
a  gateway  at  either  end.     A  handsome  example  of  such  a  gate 

1  The  word  meant  originally  "shelter,"  "hut."  Some  wi-iters  employ  the 
word  "stage-building,"  but  as  the  fifth-century  theater  had  no  stage  (p.  36)  this 
term  is  misleading  and  should  be  avoided. 

2  See  Fiechter,  Die  bawjescMchtliche  Entwicklum/  des  antiken  Theaters 
(1914),  p.  35. 

1 


2  THE   GREEK   THEATER 

was  found  in  the  beautiful  theater  at  Epidaurus  (Figs.  1,  3). 
Between  the  scene-building  and  the  auditorium  lay  the  orchestra 
area  [opxw'^p*^,  "dancing  place")  with  its  two  approaches  one 
from  either  side,  known  as  the  parodi  (TrapoSos,  "side  entrance"), 
which  served  not  only  as  passageways  for  the  audience  but  as 


Fig.  2. — Plan  of  the  Theater  at  Thorici's  (After  D'orpfeld). 


means  of  entrance  and  exit  for  chorus  and  actors  as  well.  The 
surface  of  the  orchestra  was  regularly  of  earth. ^ 

These  several  component  elements  are  clearly  shown  in  the 
plan  of  the  fourth-century  theater  at  Athens  (Fig.  6).  Not  until 
Roman  times,  however,  were  they  welded  into  a  single  structure 
possessing  genuine  architectural  unity  such  as  appears  in  the 
splendid  theaters  at  Orange  and  Aspendus. 

In  striking  contrast  with  the  Roman  theaters  and  those  which 
were  reconstructed  under  Roman  influence,  the  Greek  theaters 
bespeak  their  humble   origin   and   the   evolutional   character  of 

8  The  elaborate  marble  and  mosaic  pavement  in  the  orchestra  at  Athens 
dates  from  the  Roman  period.  Roman  also  is  the  marble  balustrade  which 
forms  a  barrier  between  the  orchestra  and  the  auditorium  (Fig.  4). 


INTRODUCTION  3 

their  development.  In  point  of  chronology  the  orchestra,  origi- 
nally circular,  was  the  earliest  portion  —  the  nuclear  center  of 
the  aggregate.  About  its  circle  in  the  early  days  the  spectators 
stood  or  sat  during  the  performance  of  the  choral  dances,  from 
which  in  course  of  time  both  tragedy  and  comedy  evolved.*     The 


■  ■.■■mumn«.ii^jm«.Hj«<t<im«ijjjjlj  j  |  |jj  |,  ijj  .j.tTi  •  ij  j  14  j  ■  1 


rf> ,v.  '■. .  (j  '  "  !N^--l:T:ii!";   .  ut 


Fig.  3.  —  Gateway  in  the  Theater  at  Epidaurus  (Restored). 

first  addition  to  the  orchestra  was  the  auditorium,  which  con- 
sisted in  early  times  in  part  of  wooden  seats  (UpuL,  "bleachers") 
erected  for  the  purpose,  in  part  no  doubt  of  the  rising  ground  of 
a  convenient  hillside.  Later  these  simple  accommodations  gave 
way  to  elaborate  structures  of  masoniy,  though  some  theaters, 
notably  that  at  Oropus,  appear  never  to  have  abandoned  the 
use  of  wooden  bleachers.     The  last  portion  to  be  added  was  the 

^  For  the  latest  discussion  of  the  origin  of  tragedy  and  comedy  see  Flickinger, 
The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1918),  pp.  1—56.  See  also  Donald  C. 
Stuart,  "The  Origin  of  Greek  Tragedy,"  Trails.  Amer.  Phil.  Assoc.  XL VII 
(1010),  173  £f. 


4  THE   GREEK   THEATER 

skene.^  This  was  originally  constructed  of  wood  or  of  some  other 
perishable  material  and  was  wholly  temporary  in  character.  Not 
until  the  close  of  the  fifth  century  or  possibly  even  later  was  a 
skene  of  stone  erected.  In  Hellenistic  times  the  front  of  the  lower 
storj'  of  the  scene-building  was  regularly  adorned  with  a  row  of 
columns,  surmounted  by  an  entablature  and  provided  with  doors 
or  movable  panels  of  wood  in  the  intercolumniations.  This  fea- 
ture of  the  building  was  known  as  the  proskenion,  and  the  ques- 
tion as  to  its  origin  and  its  purpose  is  one  of  the  most  difficult, 
as  well  as  one  of  the  most  important,  problems  in  the  history  of 
the  scene-building  (p.  91).  The  best  preserved  example  of  an 
Hellenistic  proskenion  is  found  in  the  small  theater  at  Priene  in 
Asia  Minor  (Fig.  5). 

The  process  of  development  which  has  just  been  traced  is 
shown  most  clearly  in  the  case  of  the  theater  in  the  precinct  of 
Dionysus  Eleuthereus  on  the  southeastern  slope  of  the  Acropolis 
at  Athens,  which  so  far  as  is  known  was  the  only  Greek  theater 
in  existence  in  the  fifth  century  before  Christ  (Fig.  6).^  Whether 
another  existed  at  this  time  also  in  the  Lenaeum,  wherever  the 
Lenaeum  was,^  is  disputed.  But  as  we  know  nothing  concerning 
it,  we  may  dismiss  it  from  consideration. 

The  antecedents  of  this  theater  of  Dionysus  Eleuthereus  are 
veiled  in  mystery.  There  are  in  our  ancient  sources  certain  vague 
references  to  an  old  orchestra  in  the  market  place  where  theatrical 
performances  are  said  to  have  been  held  before  the  construction 
of  the  theater  on  the  slope  of  the  Acropolis.*     No  good  reason 

6  Fiechter's  statement  (op.  cit.,  p.  12)  that  "  bei  einem  antiken  Theaterbau 
ist  wohl  stets  das  Skenengebaude  zuerst  in  Angriff  genommen  worden,  nachher 
erst  der  Zuschauerraum  ' '  does  not  apply,  and  was  not  intended  to  apply,  to  the 
theater  of  the  fifth  centmy. 

6  The  theater  at  Eretria,  as  also  that  at  Thoricus  (Fig.  2),  may  date  from  the 
closing  years  of  the  fifth  century.  But  this  is  very  uncertain  ;  see  Dorpfeld, 
Das  (jriechische  Theater,  pp.  109,  113. 

^  For  a  discussion  of  this  difficult  problem  see  Judeich,  Topographie  von 
Athen  (1905),  p.  26.3,  note  10  ;  also  Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge,  The  Attic  Theatre 
(ed.  3,  1907),  pp.  368  ff. 

8  riiotius,  s.vv.  iKpia,  dpxM'rpa,  and  XrjvaTov.     Compare  also  Plato,  Laws,  817  c 


TV  Jv'/ Af,*i/,,,T1 


K 


X 


t 


Him'''  #™fei*^']n 


/: 


z 

H 


INTRODUCTION  5 

appears  for  disputing  this  testimony,  but  we  know  nothing  more 
concerning  the  matter,  not  even  the  location  of  the  market  place 
itself.  We  are  told,  however,  by  the  late  lexicographer  Suidas 
that  about  the  year  499  b.c,  on  the  occasion  of  a  contest  between 
the  poets  Aeschylus,  Pratinas,  and  Choerilus,  the  wooden  seats 
(I'/cpta)  upon  which  the  audience  was  sitting  collapsed  and  that 
as  a  result  of  this  accident  "a  theater  was  constructed."^  The 
precise  meaning  of  this  statement  cannot  be  recovered.  Very 
likely  Suidas  himself  could  not  with  certainty  have  elucidated  it. 
But  the  inference  is  perhaps  justifiable  that  until  this  mishap  oc- 
curred the  Athenians  had  been  content  to  hold  their  choral  and 
dramatic  festivals  in  the  market  place,  but  that  now  they  decided 
to  construct  an  auditorium  in  a  more  favorable  location.  If  this 
conjecture,  which  is  adopted  by  a  number  of  scholars,  be  sound, 
the  theater  in  the  precinct  of  Dionysus  Eleuthereus  dates  from 
about  the  year  500  b.c.  It  may  be,  however,  as  others  believe, 
that  this  site  had  been  selected  as  early  as  the  days  of  Pisistratus 
and  Thespis  (about  534  b.c.)  and  that  the  collapse  of  the  bleachers 
mentioned  by  Suidas  occurred  here  rather  than  in  the  market 
place. 

Be  this  as  it  may  —  the  correct  interpretation  will  perhaps 
never  be  known  —  the  theater  of  Dionysus  Eleuthereus  became 
in  course  of  time  the  only  theater  at  Athens.  It  was  here  that 
Aeschylus,  Sophocles,  Euripides  and  Aristophanes,  not  to  men- 
tion the  host  of  other  tragic  and  comic  poets  of  the  fifth  century, 
presented  most,  if  not  all,  of  their  plays.  And  it  continued  in  use 
for  dramatic  and  other  performances  and  spectacles  and  for  various 
pubUc  functions  for  at  least  a  thousand  years.  Moreover  this 
theater  on  the  southeastern  slope  of  the  Acropolis  was  the  first 
Greek  theater  to  be  developed  and  became  the  pattern  after 

and  Hesycliius,  s.v.  i-rrl  X-qvaii^  ayJjv.  This  old  orchestra  may  have  been  the 
same  as  the  orchestra  in  the  Lenaeum.  See  the  preceding  note  and  Judeich, 
op.  cit,  pp.  303,  304. 

*  Suidas,  s.v.,  Uparlvas. 


6  THE   GREEK   THEATER 

which,  though  with  infinite  variety  of  detail,  all  subsequent  Greek 
and  Roman  theaters  were  modeled.  Thus  the  fifth-century 
theater  at  Athens  occupies  a  position  of  strildng  importance  in 
the  history  of  architecture ;  but  more  than  this,  because  of  its 
dramatic  and  other  religious  and  secular  associations,  its  appeal  to 
the  imagination  far  surpasses  that  of  any  other  structure  of 
its  kind. 

The  reconstruction  of  this  ancient  building  is  therefore  a  most 
fascinating  problem.     But  it  is  a  dark  problem.     Some  of  the 
factors  necessary  for  its  solution  are  entirely  lacldng ;    others 
again  are  shrouded  in  the  obscurity  of  conflicting  testimony  and 
fragmentary  evidence.     In  comparison  the  difficulties  that  pertain 
to  the  EUzabethan  theater,  perplexing  as  these  are,  are  simple 
and  easily  solved.     There  are  here  no  contemporaneous  pictures 
corresponding  to  the  rude  sketch  of  the  Swan  or  to  the  frontis- 
piece of  Messalina.     Stage  directions  too,  which  are  so  useful 
to  the  Shakespearean  scholar,  are  few  and  inconclusive ;    while 
even  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  theaters  and  plays  of  the  suc- 
ceeding period  is  incomplete  and  uncertain.     The  portion  of  the 
problem  that  still  presents  the  greatest  difficulty  centers  about 
the  skene  or  scene-building,  which  was  constructed  of  wood  and 
of  other  perishable  materials,  and  of  which  therefore  no  fragment 
or  trace  remains.     The  points  at  issue  concern  not  only  its  size, 
shape,  appearance,  and  the  like,  but  even  its  location,  and  have 
been   the    occasion   of    a   protracted    controversy.     A    complete 
solution  of  the  difficulties  involved  is  no  doubt  impossible  of 
attainment.     But   a  study   of  the  ruins   of  the  fourth-century 
skene  and  of  the  few  surviving  fragments  of  the  fifth-century 
theater,  supplemented  by  evidence  derived  from  other  kindred 
structures  and  from  an  examination  of  the  dramatic  literature 
of  the  fifth  century,  makes  the  recovery  of  some  of  the  essential 
factors  reasonably  possible. 

This  is  the  problem  and  these  the  questions  with  which  this 
treatise  is  chiefly  concerned.     As  a  convenient  point  of  departure 


INTRODUCTION  7 

let  us  begin  with  a  brief  description  of  the  fourth-century  theater.^" 
We  shall  then  turn  back  to  the  earlier  structure  and  show  that 
the  remains  of  the  fourth-century  theater  furnish  a  key  for  the 
reconstruction  of  certain  features  of  the  building  as  it  existed  in 
the  days  of  Sophocles.  An  examination  of  the  literary  evidence 
will  then  be  necessary,  and  this  will  lead  in  turn  to  a  criticism  of 
various  theories  which  have  been  proposed.  Out  of  this  there 
will  develop  a  discussion  of  the  origin  of  the  proskenion  which  is 
so  prominent  a  feature  of  the  Hellenistic  theater.  In  conclusion 
we  shall  propose  as  a  reasonable  hypothesis  that  the  proskenion 
was  in  point  of  origin  the  skene  itself  of  the  Aeschylean  theater. 

10  The  history  of  the  Athenian  theater  may  be  roughly  divided  into  the  follow- 
ing periods:  (1)  Tlie  fifth  century  b.c.  ;  (2)  tlie  fourth  and  third  centuries  b.c.  ; 
(.3)  the  second  and  first  centuries  b.c.  —  tlie  Hellenistic  period;  (4)  the  first 
and  second  centuries  a.d. — the  Neroniau  theater;  and  (5)  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries  a.d.  —  the  Phaedrian  remodelment.  The  last  two  divisions 
taken  together  constitute  the  Roman  period.  For  a  description  of  the  Hellen- 
i.stic  and  Roman  reconstructions,  see  Dorpfeld,  Das  griechische  Theater,  pp.  7.3- 
96;  Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge,  TAe^Wic  T/tea^re  (1907),  pp.  87,  88  ;  Flickinger, 
The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama,  pp.  70  ff. 


II 

THE  FOURTH-CENTURY  THEATER  AT  ATHENS" 

During"  the  fifth  century  B.C.  the  theater  in  the  precinct  of 
Dionysus  Eleuthereus  became  by  the  processes  of  external  accre- 
tion and  expansion  a  structure  of  considerable  magnitude.  But 
even  until  the  close  of  the  century  apparently  both  auditorium 
and  scene-building  alike  continued  to  be  unpretentious  erections 
of  wood.^-  In  sharp  contrast  with  this  earlier  building  the  new 
theater  of  the  fourth  century  was  in  the  main  an  edifice  of  stone 
and  marble.  The  date  when  this  reconstruction  was  begun 
cannot  at  present  be  determined  with  certainty,  but  it  appears 

"  Selected  bibliography : 

Dorpfeld  und  Reisch,  Das  griechische  Theater  (1896),  pp.  36  ff.  This  book,  in 
spite  of  repeated  attacks  by  Bethe,  Puchstein,  Petersen,  Furtwangler  and 
others,  still  remains  the  most  authoritative  treatise  on  the  Athenian  theater. 

Puchstein,  Die  gnechisrhe  Bllhne  (1901),  pp.  1-45,  100  ff.,  1.31  ff.  The  author 
of  this  study  according  to  his  own  confession  (p.  2)  ignored  the  evidence 
afforded  by  the  dramatic  literatiu'e.  But  not  with  impunity  ;  his  conclusions 
are  either  wholly  unsound  or  open  to  serious  question.  Reviewed  by  Dorp- 
feld in  Athenische  Mittheilungen,  XXVIII  (1903),  .385  ff.,  and  by  Robert 
in  Gottingische  Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  CLXIV  (1902),  413  ff. 

Furtwangler,  "Zum  Dionysostheater  in  Athen, "  S.-B.  d.  philos.-philol.  u.  d. 
histor.  Classe  d.  k.  b.  Akad.  d.  IFm.,  Miinehen  (1901),  pp.411  ff.  Devoted 
chiefly  to  a  disfussion  of  the  date  of  the  reconstruction  of  the  theater. 

Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge,  The  Attic  Theatre  (ed.  3, 1907),  pp.  86ft'.  Although 
useful,  this  book  is  marred  by  many  faults.  Happily  it  has  recently  been 
superseded  (see  below). 

Fiechter,  Die  haugeschichtliche  Entwicklung  des  antiken  Theaters  (1914),  pp. 
9  ff.  and  i^assim.  A  stimulating  and  beautifully  illustrated  treatise  ;  some 
of  its  conclusions,  however,  cannot  be  accepted. 

Flickinger,    The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1918),  pp.  57  ff.     This  is  not 
only  tlie  most  recent  discussion  of  the  Greek  theater  and  its  problems,  but 
without  question  also  the  best. 
For  additional  titles  and  other  references  see  the  following  footnotes. 

12  vSome  scholars  however,  notably  Puchstein  (op.  cit.,  pp.  138,  139),  and 
Furtwangler  (op.  cit.),  have  maintained  that  the  auditorium  was  reconstructed 
wholly  or  partially  of  stone  before  the  close  of  the  fifth  century.  It  is  possible 
further  that  the  stone  foundations  of  the  fourth-century  skene  were  laid  before 
the  year  400.     For  a  discussion  of  this  matter  see  the  end  of  this  chapter  (p.  18). 

8 


'"■■      u/MtR  TEMPLE  DIONYSUS    LLEUTHERtUS 


Fig.  6.  —  Plan  of  the  Fourth-Century  Theater  and  the  Precinct  of  Dio- 
Ni'sus  Eleuthereus  at  Athens  (after  Dorpfeld,  Modified). 


THE  FOURTH-CENTURY  THEATER  AT  ATHENS 


9 


to  have  been  brought  to  completion  under  the  able  administra- 
tion of  Lyeurgus,  who  was  finance  minister  of  Athens  between  the 
years  338  and  326  b.c.^^  For  this  reason  the  fourth-century  theater 
is  frequently  referred  to  as  the  theater  of  Lyeurgus  or  as  the 
Lycurgean  theater. ^^  A  plan  of  this  building  together  with  the 
precinct  of  Dionysus  is  shown  in  figure  6.  Be  it  noted  however 
that  the  large  colonnade  which  adjoins  the  scene-building  is 
not  a  part  of  the  theater  itself  but  belongs  rather  to  the  precinct. 


.Iriff-iiririTrii  i  i  m 


Fig.  7.  —  Doric  Facade  of  one  of  the  Paraskenia  of  the  Lycurgean  Theater 

AT  Athens  (after  Fiechter). 

The  orchestra-area  was  composed  of  two  parts  :  its  northern 
half  was  a  semicircle ;  its  southern  half,  a  rectangle.  The  por- 
tion inclosed  by  the  auditorium  was  surrounded  by  an  open 
gutter  which  was  bridged  by  stone  slabs  placed  opposite  the 
aisles.  The  surface  of  the  orchestra  was  of  earth,  and  its  diameter, 
as  determined  by  the  inner  circumference  of  the  gutter,  was  19.61 

^3  See  Pseudo-Plutarch,  X  Oratorum  Vitae,  841  D  and  852  C  ;  also  Hyperides, 
Oral,  deperd.  118  (Kenyon)  ;  Pausanias  I,  29,  16 ;  and  CIA  II,  240. 

!■*  Puchstein  (op.  cit.,  pp.  131  ff. )  sought  to  prove  that  the  erection  of  the 
permanent  marble  proskenion  and  the  introduction  of  other  changes  in  the 
scene-building,  which  Dorpfeld  assigned  to  the  Hellenistic  period,  were  effected 
during  the  administration  of  Lyeurgus.  But  this  hypothesis  has  met  with  little 
favor ;  see  Fiechter,  op.  cit,  pp.  12,  13.  Versakis  ("  Das  Skenengebaude  des 
Dionysos-Theaters,''  Jahrhuch  d.  arch.  Instituts,  XXIV  (1909),  pp.  194  ff.) 
tried,  though  in  vain,  to  connect  the  figures  of  the  Neroniau  (and  Phaedrian) 
frieze  with  this  jjeriod  (pp.  214  ff. ). 


10  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

meters  or  sixty-four  feet,  four  inches.  This  is  equal  to  sixty 
Aeginetan- Attic  feet  of  12.87  inches  (.327  m.)  each,  a  fact  that 
is  beheved  by  Dorpfeld  to  be  "significant  as  showing  that  the 
orchestra  was  the  starting  point  in  the  measurements  and  not 
incidentally  derived  from  some  other  part  of  the  theater."  ^^ 
As  we  shall  see  later  (p.  31)  the  orchestra-area  of  the  fifth-century 
theater  had  the  same  diameter.  Whether  the  circle  of  the  orchestra 
was  ever  made  complete  and  indicated  by  means  of  a  curbing, 
as  in  the  theater  at  Epidaurus  (Fig.  1),  is  not  known.  The  parodi 
at  their  narrowest  points  were  about  eight  and  a  half  feet  (2.60  m.) 
in  width. ^'"^ 

The  vast  auditorium  with  its  massive  retaining  walls,  its  row 
of  handsome  marble  thrones  and  its  tier  upon  tier  of  seats  need 
not  be  described  in  detail.  As  the  plan  shows,  it  was  quite  irregu- 
lar in  shape,  and  extended  upward  to  the  scarp  of  the  Acropolis. 
It  provided  accommodation  for  at  least  fourteen  thousand  per- 
sons. ^^^  In  ancient  times  a  roadway  which  sldrted  the  AcropoUs 
close  under  its  cliff  had  crossed  the  site  of  the  theater.  The 
earliest  auditorium  probably  did  not  extend  beyond  this  line 
(p.  23),  but  sooner  or  later  the  road  came  to  be  incorporated  in 
the  theater  as  a  diazoma  (passageway).  In  the  Lycurgean  audi- 
torium the  level  of  this  diazoma  was  about  twenty-six  feet  above 
that  of  the  original  road  (Fig.  17)  and  the  sweep  of  its  curve  was 
consequently  made  greater  that  it  might  conform  the  more  exactly 
to  the  contour  of  the  tiers  of  seats.  We  may  note  further  that 
the  curve  of  the  rows  of  seats  in  the  lower  portion  of  the  auditorium 
was  not  the  same  as  that  of  the  orchestra.  The  spaces  on  either 
side  between  the  gutter  and  the  row  of  thrones  grew  gradually 

IB  The  quotation  is  from  Flickinger  {op.  cit.,  p.  69),  but  is  a  paraplirase  of 
Dorpf eld's  statement  {Das  griechische  Theater,  p.  .59). 

16  It  may  be  mentioned  in  passing  that  the  scale  of  measurement  given  by 
Dorpfeld  {op.  cit.,  Taf.  2),  is  incorrect.  It  should  be  the  same  as  that  for 
Tafel  1  ;  compare  Tafeln  3  and  4. 

1^  If  only  sixteen  inches  were  allowed  for  each  person  the  seating  capacity 
wotdd  have  been  about  seventeen  thousand  (Dorpfeld,  op.  cit..  p.  44). 


THE  FOURTH-CENTURY  THEATER  AT  ATHENS    11 


wider  as  one  approached  the  parodi.  This  was  no  doubt  a  con- 
venient arrangement  as  faciUtating  the  entrance  and  exit  of  the 
spectators ;  an  explanation  of  its  origin  will  be  proposed  in  con- 
nection with  the  discussion  of  the  earlier  theater  (p.  35). 

But  the  problems  that  concern  the  orchestra  and  the  auditorium 
are  simple  indeed  in  comparison  with  those  which  confront  us 
when  we  undertake  to  restore  the  scene-building.  Many  factors 
essential  to  its  reconstruction  have  been  lost  beyond  recovery. 
Extensive  portions  of  the  foundation  walls  and  a  few  scattered 
bits  of  the  superstructure  alone  have  been  preserved;  the  re- 
mainder can  be  restored  only  by  conjecture.     It  was  a  large 


Fig.  8. 


Ground   Pl.\n  of  the   Fifth-Century   Skene   of  the   Theater  at 
Athens  as  Conjectur.'Vlly  Restored  by  Fiechter. 


rectangular  structure  one  hundred  fifty-two  feet  in  length  and 
twenty-one  feet  deep  at  the  center.  At  the  ends  of  this  shallower 
portion  two  wings,  each  about  sixteen  and  one-half  feet  in  depth 
and  twenty-three  feet  wide,  and  known  as  paraskenia,  projected 
toward  the  auditorium.  The  front  of  each  of  the  paraskenia  was 
adorned  with  six  small  Doric  columns  and  a  simple  Doric  frieze 
(Fig.  7),  from  the  fragments  of  which  Dorpfeld  was  able  to  cal- 
culate with  approximate  accuracy  the  height  of  these  projecting 
wings  and  therefore  the  height  of  the  first  story  of  the  entire 
scene-building.     This  was  about  thirteen  feet. 

The  reconstruction,  however,  of  these  paraskenia  is  involved 
in  difficulties.  The  massiveness  of  the  foundations  is  puzzling, 
and  would  seem  to  have  been  intended  for  a  more  substantial 
superstructure   than   a   colonnade.     Possibly,    as    Fiechter   sug- 


12 


THE   GREEK  THEATER 


gests/8  this  had  been  at  first  a  soHd  wall  (Fig.  8).  The  nature 
of  the  sides  also  is  in  doubt.  From  the  appearance  of  a  corner- 
piece  of  the  architrave  Dorpfeld  concluded  ^^  that  the  sides  as 
well  as  the  front  were  adorned  with  columns  (Fig.  9).  But 
Fiechter-"  denies  the  validity  of  this  conclusion  and  restores  the 
sides  rather  as  walls  terminating  in  antae  (Fig.  10).  Dorpfeld 
further  conjectured  that  a  colonnade  extended  also  along  the 
front  of  the  skene  between  the  columnated  parasketiia  (Fig.  9), 
but  this  proposal  also  has  been  repeatedly  and  vigorously  attacked, 
and  no  longer  has  the  support  even  of  Dorpfold  himself.-^     What 


»WII|    I    I    I    1    I     I    I    I    I    I 

0  10  tOM 

Fig.  9.  —  Ground  Plan  of  the  Fourth-Century  Skene  of  the  Theater  at 
Athens  as  Restored  by  Dorpfeld. 

then  was  the  appearance  of  this  central  portion  of  the  skene  f 
No  one  can  say  with  certainty.  The  foundations  furnish  no 
clue.  Instead  of  the  three  doors  conjecturally  restored  by  Dorp- 
feld (Fig.  9)  on  the  analogy  of  the  scene-building  at  Eretria,  there 
may  have  been  actually  but  one  door  ;  while  Fiechter  has  recently 
proposed  an  entirely  different  arrangement.-  The  front  of  the 
upper  story  of  the  Hellenistic  theater  at  Oropus  consisted  of 
five  large  openings  with  four  intervening  piers  (Fig.  11).  The 
Hellenistic  reconstruction  of  the  theater  at  Ephesus  had  seven  such 

18  Op.  cit.,  p.  10. 

19  Bus  griechische  Theater,  p.  65  and  fig.  21. 

20  Op.  cit.,  pp.  100,  101.     Compare  also  Puchstein,  op.  cit.,  pp.  100  ff.,  131  ff. 

21  Jahrb.  d.  arch.  Inst.,  Ayizieger,  XXVIII  (1913).  .38. 

22  Op.  at.,  pp.  34  ff.,  66  ff. 


THE  FOURTH-CENTURY  THEATER  AT  ATHENS    13 


openings,  and  traces  of  a  similar  construction  are  said  to  have 
been  found  also  at  Priene.  From  these  facts  Fiechter  makes  the 
precarious  deduction  that  the  fagade  of  the  scene-building  in 
the  fourth  century  consisted  in  its  central  portion  of  a  series  of 
open  spaces  and  massive  piers.  In  conformity  with  this  theory 
he  explains  the  Hellenistic  proskenion  as  an  extraneous  addition 
imported  from  southern  Italy.  A  glance  at  his  restoration  of 
the  Lycurgean  .^Jcene  (Fig.  12),  however,  is  sufficient  to  insure  its 


milllllllllMIIIIMI|IIIIIIMW,llllirulllflllU V. IMI 


TMiiMiniiiiiiniii 


MIMIIWIIIIIUllllHIMIMimjIlllllllllllllinillllllllll 


o  o  o  d  o  d' 


o6"n5oo 


IIIIIIIIMIIII      Iflfl 


m 


Fig.   10.  —  Ground   Pl.\n   of   the    Fourth-Century   Skene   of   the   Theater 
AT  Athens  as  Restored  by  Fiechter. 

rejection,  while  the  hypothesis  by  which  he  eliminates  the  embar- 
rassing proskenion  is  merely  an  adroit  subterfuge  (see  further 
p.  109). 

The  space  inclosed  by  the  fagade  of  the  scene-building  and  the 
tAvo  paraskenia,  it  is  generally  assumed,  was  occupied  during 
the  dramatic  performances  by  a  temporary  erection  of  wood. 
According  to  certain  scholars  this  was  a  stage  (cf.  Fig.  12)  ;  in 
the  judgment  of  others,  a  variable  background.  Both  views 
are  based  solely  on  conjecture  ;  not  a  trace  of  either  of  the  assumed 
constructions  remains  to  dispel  uncertainty.  But  the  advocates 
of  the  second  theory  have  the  stronger  case.  The  assumption  of 
a  stage  in  the  fourth  century,  as  also  in  the  fifth,  is  supported 
only  by  a  series  of  unconvincing  hypotheses  and  will  not,  I  believe, 
be  able  much  longer  to  weather  the  storm  of  criticism  which  it 
has  provoked. 23     The  alternative  theory,  like  the  first,  appears 

23  For  an  admirable  presentation  of  the  ars;uments  on  which  this  conckision 
is  based,  together  with  a  brief  bibliography  of  the  controversy,  see  Flickinfjer, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  78-103  and  also  pp.  -59,  60.     As  will  be  seen  below,  however  (p.  36), 


14 


THE   GREEK   THEATER 


in  more  than  one  form.  According  to  Dorpfeld  this  background, 
to  which  he  apphes  the  term  proskenion,  consisted  at  times  of  a 
row  of  posts  or  columns  with  panels  between,  at  other  times  of 
more  distinctively  realistic  erections,  or  again  only  of  large  painted 
screens  (Schmuckwande).  The  dramas  of  this  period,  he  observes, 
demanded  for  their  adequate  presentation  several  different  types 


JU•u^Y^"D"aT□"D"□"?^□^^D"y^"□  D"y"ra"aYD"a^tn3-n=n"U^^"a"D"Di 


rn 


u 


r~i 


Fig.  11.  —  Froistt  Elevation  of  the  Scene-Building  at  Oropus  as  Restored 

BY    FlECHTER. 

of  settings,  from  which  he  concludes  that  ''these  various  decora- 
tions must  have  been  provided  by  means  of  movable  proskenia  of 
wholly  different  forms  (Diese  verschiedenen  Dekorationen  mussten 
durch  bewegliche  Proskenien  von  ganz  verschiedener  Form  gebildet 
werden)."24  But  the  majority  of  those  who  beheve  that  a  pro- 
skenion occupied  the  space  between  the  paraskenia  in  the  Lycurgean 
theater  hold  that  it  was  already  of  the  conventional  type  found 

I  do  not  agree  with  the  author  in  his  interpretation  of  ava^alveiv  and  Kara^aiueiv 
(p.  91).  For  a  statement  of  the  arguments  on  the  opposing  side,  see  Haigh, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  140  ff.  The  most  recent  defense  of  the  stage-theory,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  is  that  by  Petersen,  Die  attische  Trayodie  als  Bild-  und  Buhnenkunst 
ru>15),  pp.  539  ff.  See  my  review  of  this  treatise  in  Class.  Phil.  XIII  (1918). 
21  ()  ff. 

2-»  I)as  griechische  Theater  (189fi),  p.  376.     See  further  page  92  below,  where 
Dorpf  eld's  theory  of  the  proskenion  will  be  discussed  in  detail. 


SSSv">S^^ 


a 

X 


H 

« 

K 


X    ^ 


< 


pq 


fa 
o 


z  o 

a  &:( 
o 
X 

a 

X 


THE  FOURTH-CENTURY  THEATER  AT  ATHENS 


15 


regularly  in  the  Hellenistic  scene-building,  as  at  Oropus  (Fig.  11), 
Priene  (Fig.  5)  and  at  Athens  itself  (Fig.  13).  In  other  words, 
it  was  a  simple  colonnade  with  a  flat,  or  nearly  flat,  roof,  and  the 
spaces  between  its  columns  could  be  closed  by  means  of  wooden 
panels  {TrCvaKa)  or  left  open  in  accordance  with  the  varying  scenic 
requirements.  But  the  material  of  the  entire  structure  was  wood, 
not  in  part  stone  or  marble  as  regularly  in  the  Hellenistic  period. -^ 
This  theory  is,  I  believe,  the  only  one  that  can  be  considered 
tenable.  It  makes  possible  a  saner  explanation  of  the  origin 
of   the   Hellenistic   proskcnion   than   does   any   other   hypothesis 


=H=|= 


44=H 


4= 


0  S  U>  3«>M 

Fig.  13.  —  Ground    Plan    of    the    Hellenistic  Scene-Building    at   Athens 

(after  Dorpfeld). 


and  is  supported  by  the  discovery  of  traces  of  a  similar  construc- 
tion in  the  theaters  at  Sicyon,  Megalopolis,  and  elsewhere.  More- 
over, there  have  been  found  certain  Delian  inscriptions  of  the 
early  third  century,  which  refer  to  the  old  wooden  scene-building 
at  Delos  and  which  mention  the  proskenion  and  its  panels.^^  This 
is  sufficient  to  justify  the  assumption  of  a  similar  erection  in  the 
theater  at  Athens ;  and  that  a  proskenion  of  some  kind  was 
already  in  existence  in  the  days  of  Lycurgus  is  proved  by  the 

25  Puclistein  assigned  the  permanent  proskenion  to  the  fourth  century  ;  see 
above,  note  14.  It  should  be  observed  that  some  scholars,  of  whom  Puchstein 
vras  one,  have  accepted  the  assumption  of  a  conventional  proskenion  in  the 
fourth  century,  but  have  interpreted  it  as  a  stage,  not  as  a  background  for  the 
actors.  This  is  merely  one  form  of  the  stage-theory  mentioned  above ;  see 
note  2.3. 

26  The  dates  of  these  particular  inscriptions  are  290  and  282  b.c.  See 
Homolle,  Bulletin  de  corres.  hell.  (1894),  161  ff. ;  Haigh,  op.  cit.,  pp.  379  ff. 


16  THE   GREEK   THEATER 

fact  that  the  famous  courtesan  Nannion,  who  is  frequently  men- 
tioned by  fourth-century  writers,  was  nicknamed  "  Proskenion, " 
"because,"  as  Harpocration  records,-^  "outwardly  she  appeared 
more  comely."  This  rather  enigmatic  explanation  is  happily 
elucidated  by  the  fuller  statement  in  Athenaeus,^^  that  "Nannion 
was  called  'Proskenion'  because  she  had  a  pretty  face  and 
adorned  herself  with  rich  garments  and  ornaments  of  gold,  but 
when  she  removed  her  garments  she  was  most  ill-favored  to  look 
upon."  Some  scholars  see  in  these  statements  a  reference  to 
painted  scenery,  but  the  Delian  inscriptions  mentioned  above 
are  sufficient  to  disprove  this  interpretation.-^ 

We  assume  then  that  a  temporary  wooden  'proskenion  was 
employed  in  the  fourth-century  theater.  It  would  be  of  the 
same  height  as  the  first  story  of  the  scene-building  and  its  columns 
would  harmonize  with  those  of  the  two  paraskenia.  In  the 
Hellenistic  reconstruction,  which  so  far  as  is  known  consisted 
chiefly  in  the  erection  of  a  permanent  colonnade  and  in  the  cur- 
tailment of  the  paraskenia  (Fig.  13),'''''  the  columns  of  the  proskenion 
were  set  at  a  distance  of  about  four  feet  back  of  the  front  line 
of  the  wings.  And  it  is  a  reasonable  conjecture  that  in  the  Lycur- 
gean  scene-building  also  they  occupied  the  same  relative  position. 
For,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  next  chapter  (p.  30),  up  to  this 
time  at  least,  the  development  of  the  theater  after  its  main  features 

2^  S.V.  Ndcwov  .  .  .  A.VT Lcpdvris  ok  b  vewrepos  €v  tw  irepl  eraipuiv  ttjv  'Saviubv 
(pffffL  UpoaKTjvLOv  iTTOvofid^eadai  Sia  to  '4t,i>}dev  SoKeiv  evp.opcpoT4pav  e'lvai. 

2^  XIII,  587  b  :  WpocrK-qvLOv  eireKoKeiTO  i]  'Ndvfioi',  on  TrpbawTrov  re  dcrreiov  ei^e 
Kal  ixpTJTo  xpvcrl'OiS  /cat  ifiaTiois  Tro\vT€\4cn,  eKdvcra  dk  9jv  aiffxpoTdrr]. 

29  Moreover  this  interpretation  would  be  possible  only  if  Nannion  had  been 
called  (TKrivri,  not  wpouKr^viov.  Furthermore,  the  expressions  employed,  eKdvaa 
and  TO  'f^ixj0ev  iVfxop(poT€pav  (wliich  implies  to  evSodfv  alffxporepav),  would  hardly 
have  been  suitable  if  applied  to  painted  scenes,  but  were  entirely  fitting  if  the 
speaker  or  writer  had  in  mind  a  structure  tliat  within  was  rough  and  unfinished, 
but  outwardly  was  pleasing  to  the  eye. 

Petersen's  explanation  of  the  proskenion  (op.  cit.,  pp.  -540  ff.)  is  quite  impos- 
sible of  acceptance. 

30  Their  facades  were  moved  back  about  six  and  a  (juarter  feet.  Fiechter  {op. 
cit.,  pp.  9  ff.)  defends  Dorpfeld  in  this  matter  (Das  grierldsche  Theater,  p.  63) 
and  rejects  the  heresies  of  Bethe  (Gottin.  Gel.  Anz.  CLIX  (1897),  720  ff.), 
Puchstein  (op.  cit.,  pp.  131  ff.),  and  Petersen  (Jahrb.  d.  arch.  Inst.,  XXIIl 
(1890),  3.3  ff.). 


THE  FOURTH-CENTURY  THEATER  AT  ATHENS    17 

were  once  established  had  been  conservatively    evolutional    in 
character  rather  than  marked  by  radical  changes.^^ 

So  far  nothing  has  been  said  about  the  upper  story  of  the 
scene-building.  That  there  was  a  second  story  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  even  before  the  close  of  the  fifth  century  certain  plays 
demanded  such  a  superstructure  for  their  presentation  (see  p.  59). 
But  regarding  its  size  and  appearance  nothing  is  known.  It  may 
be,  as  Fiechter  contends,  that  it  resembled  the  upper  portion  of 
the  Hellenistic  scene-buildings  at  Oropus  and  Ephesus,  the  fagades 
of  which,  as  we  saw  above,  consisted  of  a  series  of  large  openings 
and  piers  (p.  13  and  Fig.  11).  But  this  is  wholly  conjectural. 
Within  the  main  hall  of  the  skene  stood  a  row  of  supporting  col- 
umns, apparently  ten  in  number,  but  these  are  not  certainly 
assignable  to  the  Lycurgean  period. ^^  There  was  also  in  this 
hall  a  massive  foundation  (Fig.  6),  but  its  purpose  still  remains 
in  doubt.  Finally  at  the  back  of  the  hall  there  ran  a  low  wall, 
in  the  upper  surface  of  which  were  cut  large  rectangular  holes 
at  regular  intervals.  As  an  explanation  of  this  mysterious  con- 
struction Dorpfeld  originally  suggested  that  the  upper  story  of 
the  scene-building  was  of  wood  and  that  these  holes  were  intended 
to  receive  its  massive  supporting  beams.  Later,  however,  he 
ventured  the  conjecture  that  in  the  early  years  of  the  fourth 
century  the  lower  story  was  of  wood  and  that  this  wall  served 
as  its  support.^  Possibly,  as  Fiechter  suggests, ^^  this  wall  was 
constructed  before  the  close  of  the  fifth  century.  But  this  is 
still  quite  uncertain. 

31  As  Flickinger  remarks  (op.  cit.,  p.  70):  "this  fourth-century  structure 
probably  reproduced  in  stone  the  main  outhnes  of  the  earher  theater  in  whicli 
the  later  tragedies  of  Sophocles  and  Euripides,  and  all  the  plays  of  Aristophanes 
were  performed."  I  have  shown  in  my  article,  "  The  Key  to  the  Reconstruction 
of  the  Fifth-Century  Theater  at  Athens"  (Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Glass.  Phil.,  V, 
55  ff.,  May,  1918),  that  this  is  certainly  the  case. 

52  Das  griechische  Theater,  p.  61. 

33  Das  qrierJiische  Theater,  p.  61  ;  Athenische  Miiteilungen,  XXXII  (1907), 
231.  Versakis  (Jahrb.  d.  arch.  Inst..  XXIV  (1909),  223,  224),  argued  that  its 
purpose  was  to  strengthen  the  rear  wall  of  the  skene. 

34  Oj).  cit..  p.  11  (see  fig.  8,  above). 


18  THE   GREEK   THEATER 

At  a  distance  of  about  sixty-five  feet  to  the  south  of  the  scene- 
building  were  discovered  the  foundations  of  the  new  temple  of 
Dionj'sus,  for  which  the  famous  sculptor  Alcamenes  made  a 
colossal  chryselephantine  statue  of  the  god.  Pausanias,  who 
made  an  extended  journey  through  Greece  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century  after  Christ,  mentions  both  the  temple  and 
the  statue  in  his  account  of  Athens  (I,  20,  3).  As  Alcamenes 
flourished  during  the  latter  half  of  the  fifth  century,  his  last 
recorded  work  being  a  group  to  commemorate  the  victory  of 
Thrasybulus  and  his  compatriots  over  the  Thirty  Tyrants  in  403, 
it  is  probable  that  this  temple  was  erected  either  before  the  close 
of  this  century  or  very  shortly  thereafter.  Its  foundation  con- 
sisted of  blocks  of  breccia  or  conglomerate,  a  material  that  was 
not  employed  at  Athens  for  this  purpose  until  after  the  death 
of  Pericles  (429  B.C.).  It  follows  therefore  that  the  date  of  the 
temple  falls  between  the  years  425  and  390  b.c.  Furtwangler  ^^ 
and  Gardner  3^  assign  it  to  the  Peace  of  Nicias  (421—415  b.c). 
But  possibly  it  was  not  erected  until  after  the  battle  of  Cyzicus 
(410  B.C.),  when  under  the  leadership  of  the  demagogue  Cleophon 
(410-404  B.C.)  the  Athenians  for  a  brief  interval,  fatuously 
confident  that  the  democracy  had  been  completely  restored,  turned 
once  more  to  the  architectural  adornment  of  their  city.  Among 
the  activities  of  this  period  was  included  the  completion  of  the 
beautiful  temple  on  the  Acropolis  known  as  the  Erechtheum. 

The  bearing  of  this  apparent  digression  is  clear  when  we  note 
that  the  foundations  of  the  scene-building  and  of  the  adjacent 
colonnade  were  similar  to  those  of  this  new  temple.  Moreover 
these  three  structures  appear  to  have  been  arranged  in  accordance 
with  a  single  plan ;  the  temple  is  virtually  parallel  to  the  portico 
and  the  skene.^'^    For  these  reasons  the  erection  of  the  new  theater 

35  Op.  cit.,  p.  413. 

36  E.  A.  Gardner,  Ancient  Athens  (1902),  pp.  31,  435,  436. 

37  Dorpfeld  in  Das  griechische  TJieater,  Tafel  2,  represents  them  as  exactly 
parallel,  but  in  Tafel  1,  which  is  presumably  more  accurate  (Judeich,  Topo- 
graphie  von  Athen,  1005,  p.  279,  note  0),  the  lines  slightly  diverge.     See  also 


THE  FOURTH-CENTURY  THEATER  AT  ATHENS    19 

is  conjecturally  assigned  by  some  scholars  to  the  closing  decades 
of  the  fifth  century.'^  Fiechter  however  accepts  this  conclusion 
only  so  far  as  concerns  the  foundations ;  the  scene-building  itself 
may  still  have  been  a  wooden  structure.^^  Only  the  recovery  of 
certain  factors  which  are  now  missing  will  make  a  definitive  deci- 
sion possible.  Until  then,  as  Fiechter  rightly  observes,  we  must 
continue  to  grope  in  the  dark. 

Noack,  Sktjvt;  TpayiKri,  Elne  Studie  liber  die  srenischen  Anlagen  aufder  Orchestra 
des  Aischylos  und  der  anderen  Trayikern  (l'.tl.5),  p.  1. 

38  Furtwangler  (op.  cit.)  proposed  the  years  421-41.S  b.o.  Gardner  (op.  cit, 
pp.  435,  436,  448)  says  "perhaps  as  early  as  420  b.c."  ;  see  also  ruchstein, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  131  ft".     Diirpfeld  had  suggested  the  years  3-50-330  b.c. 

39  Op.  cit.,  pp.  11,  12.     See  also  Flickiuger,  op.  cit.,  p.  67. 


Ill 

THE  THEATER  OF  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY ^o 

The  splendid  theater  of  the  days  of  Lycurgus  and  Menander, 
though  built  in  the  main  of  limestone  and  marble,  admits  of 
but  a  partial  reconstruction.  How  much  greater  the  difficulties 
encountered  when  we  undertake  to  restore  the  less  substantial 
building  of  the  time  of  Pericles  !  Of  this  structure  almost  nothing 
has  been  preserved ;  yet  this  little  when  examined  closely  tells 
an  extraordinarily  fascinating  story.  Indeed  even  the  meagerness 
of  the  remains  is  itself  significant,  for  it  proves  beyond  a  doubt 
that  the  building  was  constructed  in  greater  part  of  perishable 
materials. 

The  foundations  of  our  knowledge  of  the  fifth-century  theater 
were  first  securely  laid  by  Dorpfeld  when  in  the  winter  of  1885-86 
he  discovered  beneath  the  inner  end  of  the  eastern  parodus  of 
the  Lycurgean  theater  a  curvilinear  cutting  in  the  bedrock  and 
underneath  the  ruins  of  the  scene-building  two  portions  of  an 
ancient  retaining  wall  (Fig.  14,  V,  R,  and  Q,  respectively).  The 
stones  which  constitute  the  larger  of  these  pieces  of  wall   (R) 

^  Selected  bibliography : 
von    Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,    "Die    Biibne    des   Aisehylos,"   Hermes,    XXI 

(1886),  597  ft".     This  was  the  tirst  attempt  to  interpret  the  early  plays  of 

Aeschylus  in  accordance  with  Diirpfeld's  discoveries ;   it  has  exercised  a 

profound  influence  upon  subsequent  discassions  of  Aeschylean  draniatursiy. 
Todt,  "Noch  Einmal  die  Biihne  des  Aeschylos,"  Philoloyus,  XLVIII  (1880), 

505  ff. ;  reactionaiy  and  unconvincing. 
Dorpfeld  und  Keisch,  Das  griechische  Theater  (1896),  pp.  24  ff.,  176  ff.,  366  ff. 
Haigh,  The  Attic  Theater  (ed.  3,  1907),  pp.  80  ff. 
Noack,  ^KTjvri  TpayiK-q,  eine  Studie  uher  die  scenischen  Anlage  auf  der  Orchestra 

des  Aischijlos  und  der  anderen  Tragikern  (1915)  ;  disappointing  on  the  side 

of  dramatic  interpretation. 
Allen,    "The   Key   to   the    Reconstruction    of   the   Fifth-Century  Theater  at 

Athens,"  Univ.  Calif.  Pnbl.  Class.  Phil.  V  (1918),  55  ff. 
Flickinger,    The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1918),  pp.  63  ff. 
For  other  references  see  the  following  footnotes. 

20 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH   CENTURY 


21 


are  carefully  fitted  together  in  the  polygonal  style  of  masonry 
and  their  exterior  surface  was  evidently  intended  to  be  seen. 
This  surface  moreover  forms  a  circular  arc  (Fig.  15)  from  which 
Dorpfeld  was  enabled  to  calculate  to  a  nicety  the  diameter  of 
the  circle  of  which  it  was  originallj'  a  portion.  This  was  about 
twenty-four  meters  or  about  seventy-eight  feet,  nine  inches. 
And  when  the  circle  thus  indicated  was  described,  it  not  only 
included  the  second  piece  of  wall  (Q)  but  passed  over  the  cutting 


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 


OLD 
iTtMPLE  [ 


PRECINCT    OF 


Fig.   14. 


♦*».««..-.,.U;;.-j  010NYSU6    ELtUTHtRElUS 

Pl.\n  Showing  the  Remains  of  the  Fifth-Century  Theater  at 
Athens  (after  Dorpfeld). 


in  the  rock  at  V  as  well.  From  these  facts  Dorpfeld  drew  the 
conclusion  that  there  had  anciently  existed  here  a  wall  inclosing 
a  circular  space  the  southern  portion  of  which  formed  a  terrace. 
And  as  portions  of  the  native  rock  within  this  circle  were  found 
standing  almost  to  the  level  of  the  fourth-century  orchestra, 
the  surface  of  this  old  terrace  must  have  been  of  approximately 
the  same  height.  The  southernmost  arc  of  the  terrace  therefore 
stood  about  two  meters  or  six  and  a  half  feet  above  the  sloping 
terrain  (Fig.  16),  while  its  northernmost  portion  formed  a  sUght 
depression  in  the  hillside.     The  material  and  the  workmanship 


22 


THE    GREEK   THEATER 


" 


of  the  retaining  wall  show  that  this  terrace  cannot  have  been 
constructed  much  later  than  the  year  500  B.C.  and  may  have  been 
built  several  decades  earlier.  Dorpfeld  concluded  therefore 
that  this  circular  terrace  was  the  orchestra  of  the  early  fifth- 
century  theater,  and  this  conclusion  has  met  with  universal 
acceptance. 

It  is  customary  accordinglj-  to  refer  to  this  terrace  as  the  or- 
chestra, but  for  reasons  which  will  be  explained  presently  I  shall 
adopt    the    designation    ''orchestra-terrace."     Whether    it    was 

originally  designed  to  serve  as 
the  orchestra  of  the  theater  is 
not  certain  ;  Gardner  suggests 
that  "possibly  it  was  an  early 
threshing  floor."  ^^  But  it 
should  be  noted  that  the  outer 
diameter  of  this  terrace  was 
'  about  fourteen  feet,  five  inches 
„      ,^       „  „  „  greater  than  that  of  the  Ly- 

FiG.  15.  —  Ground  Plan  and  Elevation  •' 

OF  A  Portion  of  the  Retaining  Wall  curgean  Orchestra    (p.   9),   and 

(Fig.    14,   R)   of  the  Old  Orchestra-  r      ,■,  ii     ,     .1        1    ,. 

Terrace  (after  Dorpfeld).  further   that   the    latter     OCCU- 

•  pied  only  in  part  the  site  of 
the  orchestra-terrace.  When  the  theater  was  reconstructed, 
therefore,  it  was  moved  about  thirty  feet  to  the  north, ^^  so  as 
to  make  room  for  the  new  scene-building  and  its  adjacent  colon- 
nade (Fig.  6)  and  to  utilize  to  better  advantage  the  dechvity  of 
the  Acropolis.  At  the  same  time  its  axis  was  shifted  about  eight 
feet  toward  the  west  (Fig.  14). 

^1  E.  A.  Gardner,  Ancient  Athens  (1902),  p.  12.S.  My  colleague,  Professor 
O.  M.  Washburn,  doubts  this,  for  the  reason  that  threshing  floors  were  regularly 
constructed  in  very  windy  places. 

^^  This  figure  is  obtained  by  measuring  the  distance  between  the  inner  curve 
of  the  gutter  of  the  fourth-centuiy  orcliestra  and  the  northernmost  arc  of  the 
orchestra-terrace.  It  is  customaiy  to  state  (Dorpfeld,  op.  cit.,  p.  28;  so  Flick- 
inger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  65,  68 ;  and  others)  that  the  theater  was  moved  northward 
about  fifty  feet,  which  is  the  distance  between  the  southernmost  points  of  the 
two  circles.  But  this  mode  of  reckoning  can  be  shown,  I  believe,  to  be  incor- 
rect (p.  32). 


tc    fc    ;« 

^    O    J 

a       J 

s  a  3 

H    J    I 

<    f^  > 

S^ 

Eh     H     H 

-<H  a 

-<i 

«    Q    „ 

g  J  s 

^Obi 

a  H  K 

s  a  ? 

H  S  fc 

■v* 

Sg| 

3 

g  <  ^ 

2    ^    - 

■^    G    ^ 

a 

o  o  , 

M 

1    2;  a 

a  5  0 

H 

r"'    '^ 

>H 

n           -^ 

n 

^  S  5 

a 
a 

^S< 

a 
a 

^' 

z 

a 
a 
a 

z 

'^ 

Ph 

0 

a 

0 

0 

<; 

H 

< 

a 

-< 

K 

z 

g 

K 

< 

0 

0 

a 

^ 

H 

a 

a 

a 

<; 

-i^ 

K 

Ph 

K 

Ah 

a 

X 

< 

•^ 

a' 

3 

k-H 

K 

Si 

0 

a 

0 
K 

z 

H 
0 

X 

w 

\_^' 

a 

a 

^— 1 

--3 

z 

0 

a 

^ 

0 

H 

z 

tc 

1— 1 

1 

0 

p 

-■; 

1 

Z 

tc 

H 

1—1 

5 

0 

Z 

0 

a 
0 

z 

d 

QD 

f^ 


THE   THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH   CENTURY  23 

A  little  way  down  the  slope,  about  thirty-six  feet  southwest 
of  the  terrace-wall,  stood  the  small  sixth-century  temple  of  Diony- 
sus Eleuthereus  (Figs.  14  and  16).  In  its  cella  was  kept  the  ancient 
wooden  statue  of  the  god,  which  had  been  brought  from  Eleutherae 
to  Athens  and  for  whose  priest  was  reserved  the  chief  seat  in 
the  neighboring  theater  (Pausanias,  I,  20,  2;   and  38,  8). 

Excavations  conducted  in  the  central  portion  of  the  auditorium 
in  the  year  1889  revealed  the  fact  that  during  the  fifth  century  the 
natural  slope  of  the  hillside  at  this  point  had  been  gradually  in- 
creased by  the  addition  of  successive  layers  of  soil  (Fig.  17).  An 
examination  of  the  fragments  of  pottery,  which  were  discovered  in 
the  different  strata,  showed  beyond  question  that  the  lowest  of 
these  layers  must  have  been  put  in  place  before  the  middle  of  this 
century  {i.e.  before  about  450  e.g.),"*^  and  that  the  other  strata 
were  not  superposed  until  later ;  from  which  it  is  clear  that,  the 
acclivity  of  the  early  auditorium  was  not  so  great  as  in  later 
times.  The  difference  between  the  gradient  of  the  Aeschylean 
theater  and  that  of  the  fourth  century  is  roughly  indicated  in 
figure  17.  And  the  ancient  roadway  which  crossed  the  site  of 
the  auditorium  was  gradually  raised  and  the  sweep  of  its  curve 
increased  until  in  the  Lycurgean  theater  it  formed  a  broad  diazojna 
some  twenty-six  feet  above  its  original  level  (p.  10,  and  Figs. 
6  and  17).  It  appears  therefore  to  be  a  reasonable  conjecture 
that  in  the  time  of  Aeschylus  the  auditorium  did  not  extend 
beyond  this  road.*^ 

Apart  from  this  early  fill  beneath  the  auditorium  the  vestiges  of 
the  orchestra-terrace  are  the  only  remains  that  can  be  assigned 
with  certainty  to  the  theater  of  Aeschylus.  West  of  the  terrace, 
however,  were  uncovered  two  pieces  of  an  ancient  wall  (Fig.  14,  D), 
which  evidently  had  been  erected  early  in  the  fifth  century.  But 
whether  this  wall  was  a  part  of  the  theater  is  not  certain.     Dorp- 

<8  Schneider,  "  Vase  des Xenocles und  Kleisophos, "  Athen.  Mitth.,  XIV  (1889), 
329  ff.,  especially  p.  383  ;  Dori^feld,  Das  griechische  Theater,  pp.  30,  31. 
4^  So  also  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  66,  note  1. 


s^»Eg 


>i  o  ^ 


O  J  O  H  H  > 


[24] 


THE   THEATER  OF   THE   FIFTH   CENTURY  25 

feld  conjectured  that  it  may  have  been  a  retaining  wall  for  the 
western  parodus,*^  and  I  shall  point  out  presently  certain  reasons 
for  believing  this  explanation  to  be  correct  (see  below,  p.  33). 
The  alternative  suggestion  that  it  may  have  been  a  portion  of 
the  auditorium  can  easily  be  shown  to  be  untenable.*^  The  pur- 
pose of  two  other  pieces  of  ancient  masonry  which  were  discovered 
in  the  area  of  the  theater  (Fig.  14,  B,  and  J)  cannot  be  determined. 
Equally  obscure  is  the  significance  of  some  traces  of  a  foundation 
in  the  western  parodus.*''  Gardner  assigns  them  to  the  fifth- 
century  theater  and  calls  them  "foundations  of  passage."  ^  Puch- 
stein  regarded  them  rather  as  a  portion  of  the  foundations  of 
a  pre-Lycurgean  auditorium.*^ 

At  the  southwestern  corner  of  the  fourth-century  auditorium 
was  found  a  stone  marked  with  the  letters  0  and  A'  and  l:)earing 
an  inscription  written  in  the 
Attic  alphabet  of  the  latter 
half  of  the  fifth  century : 
BOAH^  YTTHPeXON,  "of  the 
servants  of  the  senate"  (Fig. 

18).      This  stone  was  built  into     Fig.     is. —  Stone      with     Inscription 
.  ,  ,   .  Found  IN  THE  Theater  AT  Athens. 

the  wall  m  mverted  position 

and  had  evidently  been  intended  for  another  place  and  pur- 
pose. It  has  accordingly  been  accepted  by  a  not  inconsiderable 
number  of  scholars  as  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  stone 
auditorium  before  the  close  of  the  fifth  century.^''  But  the  rela- 
y's Op.  cit,  p.  .31.  Noack  (op.  ctt.,  p.  5)  says:  "Die  Mauer  D  kann  schlecht- 
erdings  iiichts  auderes  als  eine  Stiitzmauei-  fiir  eineu  Rampenweg  bedeuten." 

46  Origiually  proposed  by  Diirpfeld  (op.  cit.,  pp.  28,  31),  this  explanation  is 
frequently  mentioned  as  a  possibility,  as  by  Judeich  (  Topoyraplile  von  Athen 
(rj05),  p.  276),  and  Haigh  (op.  cit.,  p.  8.5). 

■i^  These  lie  immediately  to  the  south  of  the  retaining  wall  of  the  western  wing 
of  the  auditorium  (flg.  li,  CC).  Diirpfeld  (Das  griecMsche  Theater)  indicates 
them  in  Tafeln  1  and  3,  but  does  not  mention  them  in  his  text. 

48  Ancient  Athens  (1002),  p.  436. 

49  Die  griecMsche  BUhne  (1901),  p.  138. 

50  So  e.(7.,  Furtwangler,  op.  cit.,  pp.  414,  415  ;  Puchstein,  op.  cit,  pp.  138,  139  ; 
Miiller,  Das  attische  Buhnenwesen  (1902),  pp.  35,  36. 


26  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

tion  of  this  stone  to  the  theater  is  still  prol^lematic,  as  is  true 
also  of  still  another  fragment  bearing  the  broken  inscription 
0  KG PYON.^i  As  this  inscription  however  does  not  admit  of 
an  interpretation  and  as  the  stone  on  which  it  appears  was  not 
found  in  the  theater,  it  sheds  no  light  upon  our  problem  and  may 
accordingly  be  dismissed  from  consideration. 

This  completes  the  enumeration  of  the  certain  and  the  conjec- 
tural remains  of  the  fifth-century  theater.  If  this  were  the  sum 
total  of  the  evidence  at  our  command,  there  construction  of  that 
early  building  would  indeed  be  impossible.  That  it  is  at  least 
partially  feasible,  we  owe  to  the  theater  of  the  fourth  century, 
whose  ruins  were  described  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Ever  since 
the  discovery  of  the  old  orchestra-terrace  in'the  winter  of  1885-86 
scholars  have  beUeved  that  the  structure  of  which  this  was  once 
a  part  must  have  come  to  resemble  more  or  less  closely  the  stone 
edifice  that  was  erected  in  its  place  during  the  fourth  century. 
But  the  failure  to  observe  a  certain  striking  relationship  between 
the  ruins  of  these  two  structures  gave  rise  to  a  number  of  divergent 
hypotheses,  no  one  of  which  could  with  positiveness  be  declared 
to  be  correct.  The  attitude  of  those  who  have  attempted  to 
solve  the  problem  is  reflected  in  the  recent  remark  of  Fiechter 
(which  however  in  its  context  has  reference  specifically  to  the 
skene) :  "what  the  building  looked  like,  no  one  knows."  ^"  The 
chief  points  in  dispute  concern  the  shape  and  size  of  the  audito- 
rium, the  position  of  the  parodi  and  the  angle  which  these  formed 
with  the  axis  of  the  theater,  and  finally  the  location,  size,  and 
appearance  of  the  scene-building.  For  years  rival  theories  have 
been  contending  for  the  mastery  with  no  umpire  to  decide  the 
issue. 

The  solution  of  some  of  these  problems,  however,  has  lain 
ready  to  hand,  albeit  unobserved,  since  the  publication  of  Das 
griechische  Theater  three  and  twenty  years  ago.     And  it  can  be 

51  CIA,  IV  (supp.),  555  b. 

52  Die  baugeschichtiiche  Entwicklung  des  antiken  Theaters  (1914),  p.  11. 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH    CENTURY  27 

demonstrated  to  a  nicety  that  the  Athenian  theater  during  its 
development  in  the  early  centuries  underwent  no  violent  changes, 
but  evolved  by  gradual  stages  from  a  structure  of  primitive  sim- 
plicity to  the  splendid  edifice  which  adorned  the  precinct  of 
Dionysus  in  the  days  of  Lycurgus  and  Menander.  The  starting 
point,  the  germ,  as  it  were,  of  the  whole,  was  the  old  orchestra- 
terrace  which  Dorpfeld  discovered  and  brilliantly  interpreted 
in  the  spring  of  1886.^^ 

Before  proceeding,  however,  to  the  explication  of  this  solution 
let  us  pause  to  observe  that  in  the  early  Aeschylean  period  a 
scene-building  apparently  had  not  yet  been  erected.  The  plays 
were  performed  on  the  orchestra-terrace  without  the  aid  of  an 
artificial  background ;  an  altar  and  a  few  simple  accessories 
alone  suggested  the  scene  (see  Fig.  16).  The  dressing  booths 
for  the  actors  at  this  period  cannot  have  been  either  on  or  behind 
the  terrace,  but  were  presumably  placed,  as  Reisch  suggested," 
at  the  outer  ends  of  the  parodi,  or  at  any  rate  at  a  considerable 
distance  from  the  orchestra.  But  in  course  of  time  an  erection 
of  some  kind  was  demanded,  to  serve  in  part  as  a  scenic  back- 
ground, partly  as  a  screen  to  conceal  the  actors  as  they  passed 
"behind  the  scenes"  from  parodus  to  parodus.^^    For,  be  it  noted, 

^  See  my  article  "The  Key  to  the  Keconstruction  of  the  Fifth-Centuiy 
Theater." 

*^  Das  yriechische  Theater,  p.  194. 

65  Mantziiis  doubts  this.  See  his  History  of  Theatrical  Art  in  Ancient  and 
Modern  Times;  translated  by  L.  von  Cossel  (1903),  p.  130,  note  1.  He  writes: 
"  We  feel  qxiite  sure  that  Dorpfeld  is  mistaken  in  his  opinion  (Das  [irlechische 
Theater,  p.  370),  that  the  dramas  necessitated  a  decorative  background.  Here, 
as  everywhere,  the  expert  dramatist  adapts  himself  to  the  given  conditions  of 
the  stage  in  all  important  matters,  and  the  scenic  conditions  do  not  change  in 
order  to  conform  themselves  to  each  special  drama."  He  concludes  therefore 
that  the  skene  was  erected  at  the  rear  of  the  orcliestra  to  serve  at  first  as  a 
dressing  booth  and  to  facilitate  exits  and  entrances  —  a  view  that  is  shared  by 
others  also.  But  in  my  judgment  this  conclusion  is  debatable.  Aeschylus  and 
Sophocles  were  geniuses  of  the  highest  order  and  did  not  permit  themselves  to 
be  hampered  unduly  by  tradition,  but  were  constantly  trying  new  experiments 
and  themselves  creating  new  conditions,  as  witness  the  introduction  of  the 
second  and  the  third  actors.  I  believe  therefore  that  the  back-scene  may  have 
been  originally  added  to  serve  as  a  background,  not  primarily  as  a  dressing 
booth.     See  also  Noack,  op.  cit.,  p.  18. 


28  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

the  parodi  were  at  first  the  only  means  of  entrance  and  exit  for 
actors  as  well  as  chorus.  The  precise  date  when  this  innovation 
was  made  is  not  known,  although  there  appears  to  have  been  a 
structure  of  some  description  as  early  as  472  b.c,  the  year  in 
which  Aeschylus  presented  his  Persians.  The  fleeting  reference 
(vs.  141)  to  "this  ancient  house"  certainly  suggests  the  presence 
of  something  to  represent  a  building  —  a  view  that  has  had  many 
champions,  but  has  none  the  less  been  frequently  and  vigorously 
contested  (p.  44).  But  several  of  Aeschylus'  plays  certainly 
demanded  a  hut  or  other  building  as  a  part  of  the  setting,  the 
most  notable  instances  being  found  in  the  Orestean  trilogy  (ex- 
hibited in  458  B.C.),  of  which  the  Agamemnon  and  the  Libatioti- 
hearers  both  require  a  palace  and  the  Eumenides  a  temple.  By 
the  year  465  b.c.  accordingly  or  thereabout  a  scene-building  had 
been  erected  and  was  thenceforth  available  as  a  regular  part  of 
the  scenic  equipment.     This  is  universally  conceded. 

What  was  the  nature  and  appearance  of  this  structure  and 
where  was  it  placed?  That  it  was  much  smaller  than  the  scene- 
building  of  the  fourth  century  and  was  a  temporary  erection  con- 
structed of  wood  or  other  light  and  perishable  materials  is  the 
all  but  unanimous  belief.^^  But  the  question  as  to  its  location 
^\^th  reference  to  the  orchestra-terrace  is  still  a  lis  sub  judice. 
Two  views  clamor  for  recognition.  The  first  of  these  was  proposed 
by  Dorpfeld  and  is,  in  the  words  of  its  most  recent  advocate,  that 
the  "scene-building  was  erected  immediately  behind  the  orchestra, 
where  the  declivity  had  previously  been"  (Fig.  19a). ^^  Quite 
apart,  however,  from  considerations  of  economy,  this  hypothesis 
involves  one  in  a  seemingly  insuperable  difficulty.     For  it  implies 

66  Haigh,  however,  supposes  that  the  fifth-century  skene  was  a  "  permanent 
structure"  and  was  "  not  put  up  and  taken  down  at  each  festival"  (op.  cit., 
p.  117).  Petersen  (Die  attische  Tragodie  als  Blld-  und  Buhnenkunst  (1915), 
pp.  530  ff. )  perversely  restores  it  after  the  pattern  of  the  Graeco-Roman  scene- 
building. 

5^  Flickinger  (op.  cit.,  p.  228  ;  so  also  p.  06,  note  3)  adds,  "  or  in  the  south 
half  of  the  old  orchestra  in  case  the  (u-chestra  was  moved  fifty  feet  nearer  the 
Acropolis  at  this  time."  But  that  the  position  of  the  orchestra  was  not  .shifted 
when  the  first  scene-building  was  erected  can  easily  be  demonstrated  (p.  31). 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH    CENTURY  29 

• —  and  the  implication  is  complacently  recognized  by  the  adher- 
ents of  this  theory  —  that  after  the  erection  of  the  scene-building 
the  orchestra  still  occupied  the  entire  area  of  the  orchestra-ter- 
race. But,  as  we  saw  above  (p.  22),  the  outer  diameter  of  this 
terrace  was  about  fourteen  feet,  five  inches  larger  than  that  of 
the  Lycurgean  theater ;  and  neither  Dorpfeld  nor  any  of  his  fol- 
lowers has  ever  been  able  to  explain  why  the  orchestra  should 
have  been  reduced  in  size  when  the  theater  was  reconstructed. 
The  fourth-century  theater  was  not  smaller  than  its  predecessor 
had  been ;   on  the  contrary  there  are  reasons  for  believing  that  it 


Fig.   19.  —  Pl.\ns  to  Illustrate  Different  Theories  Regarding  the  Position 
OF  THE  Scene-Building  in  the  Early  Theater. 

was  actually  larger  (p.  10,  and  below,  p.  35).  This  considera- 
tion is  most  disconcerting  and  casts  a  suspicion  upon  the  validity 
of  Dorpfeld's  hypothesis.  We  shall  soon  discover  additional 
reasons  why  this  initial  doubt  must  issue  in  disbelief. 

The  opposing  view,  originally  suggested  by  von  Wilamowitz, 
was  adopted  and  elaborated  by  Robert,  and  is  that  the  scene- 
building  was  erected  07i  the  terrace  rather  than  beyond  it  (Fig. 
196).^*  But  precisely  where  the  building  was  placed  and  what  its 
dimensions  were  no  one  has  succeeded  in  determining.     Fiechter, 

58  Von  Wilamowitz,  Rermes,  XXI  (1886),  605.  Robert  writes  :  "  Aiif  die  Frage 
nach  der  Stelle  des  alteren  Skeneiigebaudes  giebt  der  AiLSgrabiuig.sbefund  keiiie 
Antwort.  .  .  .  Ich  bin  in  meiner  alten  Meinung  \_Herifies,  XXXI  (181)6) ,  550] ,  dass 
es  die  hintere  Halfte  der  Orchestra  einnahm,  durch  Diirpfelds  eigene  Darle- 
gungen  nur  bestarkt  worden "  {Hermes,  XXXII  (1897),  42.3).  Cf.  Barnett, 
The  Greek  Drama  (1901),  p.  74:  "  Somewliere  in  tlie  furtliermost  lialf  of  tlie 
orchestra."  Noack  also  {op.  cit.,  pp.  6,  7,  17,  40,  58,  59)  places  the  early  shene 
on  the  orchestra-terrace. 


30 


THE    GREEK   THEATER 


who  has  published  the  most  recent  architectural  treatise  on  the 
development  of  the  Greek  theater,  significantly  begins  his  dis- 
cussion with  the  theater  of  the  fourth  century  and  makes  no 
attempt  to  restore  the  earlier  scene-building,  weakly  remarking : 
"There  must  have  been  an  imposing  (bedeutender)  stage-building 
in  the  fifth  century;    but  hardly  in  Aeschylus'  time.     We  may 


n-e"^":;?1~l 


Fig.  20.  —  Plan  Showing  the  Relation  of  the  Fifth-Century  Theater  at 
Athens  to  that  of  the  Fourth  Century. 

conjecture  that  such  a  structure  was  erected  about  the  year  427  b.c. 
.  .  .     But  what  it  looked  like  no  one  knows."  ^^ 

The  old  orchestra-terrace,  which  may  originally  have  been 
a  threshing  floor,  as  Gardner  suggested  (p.  22),  was  supported 
by  a  retaining  wall  whose  thickness  Dorpfeld  indicated  by  two 
concentric  circles.^"     Now  if  the  front  portion  of  the  Lycurgean 

59  Op.  cit.,  p.  11  (.see  note  62,  above).  In  figure  14  however  (fig.  8,  p.  11) 
he  presents  a  "  problematischer  Grundriss  des  altesten  Biihnengebaudes  (Ergan- 
zungsversuch)."  He  means  by  this  the  building  which  he  supposes  was  erected 
about  the  year  427. 

60  Das  griechische  Theater,  Tafelu  1  and  3. 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH   CENTURY  31 

scene-building  together  with  the  orchestra-circle,  the  diameter  of 
which  is  determined  by  the  inner  boundary  of  the  gutter  (p.  9), 
be  superimposed  upon  a  circle  of  the  exact  size  of  the  orchestra- 
terrace  in  such  a  manner  that  the  corners  of  the  paraskenia  nearest 
the  orchestra  coincide  exactly  with  the  inner  edge  of  the  retaining 
wall,  then  the  wall  at  the  rear  of  the  paraskenia  and  connecting 
them  rests  upon  the  retaining  wall  of  the  terrace  at  its  southern- 
most point ;  and  furthermore  the  circle  of  the  fourth-century 
orchestra  falls  just  within  the  inner  periphery  of  the  larger  circle 
at  its  northernmost  point,  as  is  shown  in  figure  20.  Again,  if  a 
line  be  drawn  between  the  paraskenia  and  at  the  same  distance 
back  from  their  front  Une  as  the  Hellenistic  proskenion  stood  back 
of  the  Hellenistic  paraskenia,  which  as  we  saw  above  was  about 
four  feet  (p.  16),  this  fine  is  an  exact  chord  of  the  outermost 
circle  of  the  old  terrace-wall  (Fig.  20,  fine  AB).  These  striking 
facts  are  of  the  utmost  significance.  Such  coincidences  cannot 
have  been  accidental,  and  their  discovery  enables  us  for  the  first 
time  to  reconstruct  this  portion  of  the  fifth-century  theater.  ^^ 

For  it  is  clear,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  the  fifth  century,  — 
before  the  position  of  the  theater  was  shifted,  —  there  had  been 
a  structure  of  some  kind  on  the  orchestra-terrace,  and  that  after 
this  had  been  erected  the  north-south  diameter  of  the  area  which 
remained  available  for  the  evolutions  of  the  chorus  was  the  same 
as  the  diameter  of  the  fourth-century  orchestra.  In  other  words 
the  Lycurgean  orchestra  was  merely  a  counterpart  of  the  orchestra 
which  had  been  famiUar  to  Sophocles  and  Euripides  and  probably 
also  to  Aeschylus  during  the  closing  years  of  his  career.  What 
this  structure  on  the  terrace  was,  the  erection  of  which  thus  deter- 
mined the  size  of  the  later  orchestra,  whether  scene-building  or 
proskenion  or  stage,  must  be  made  the  subject  of  further  inquiry. 
I  may  state,  however,  that  in  my  belief  it  was  the  Aeschylean 
scene-building,  and  this  I  shall  later  attempt  to  prove  (Chap.  8). 

61  This  paragraph  is  quoted  with  very  shght  change  from  my  "  Key  to  the 
Reconstruction  of  the  Fifth-Century  Theater. ' ' 


32  THE    GREEK    THEATER 

But  before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  this  point  let  us 
see  what  further  conclusions  may  be  drawn  from  the  discovery 
that  the  Lycurgean  scene-building  and  the  orchestra  coincide 
so  exactly  with  the  old  orchestra-terrace  of  the  fifth  century. 
In  the  first  place  we  now  understand  why  the  fourth-century 
paraskenia  had  a  depth  of  five  meters  and  stood  twenty  and  one- 
half  meters  apart.  These  dimensions  were  determined  by  the 
size  of  the  orchestra-terrace,  and  were  retained  when  the  theater 
was  reconstructed.  When  this  reconstruction  took  place,  whether 
at  the  close  of  the  fifth  century  or  several  decades  earlier,  is 
of  course  not  clear  and  may  never  l)e  determinable,  but  that  it 
did  not  occur  at  the  time  when  the  scene-building  was  first  in- 
troduced is  proved  beyond  cavil.  And  the  fact  that  when  recon- 
structed the  paraskenia  had  the  same  depth  and  stood  the  same 
distance  apart  as  in  the  earlier  structure  makes  entirely  reasonable 
the  conjecture  that  the  paraskenia  of  the  Sophoclean  theater 
had  corresponded  also  in  their  other  dimensions  to  those  of  the 
theater  of  Lycurgus.  If  this  be  granted,  the  width  of  the  fifth- 
century  paraskenia  was  about  twenty-three  feet  (seven  meters), 
and  their  height,  and  therefore  the  height  of  the  first  story  of 
the  scene-building,  about  thirteen  feet  (p.  11). 

But  further,  the  points  where  the  parodi  joined  the  orchestra- 
terrace  are  also  established.  Heretofore  these  have  been  as 
it  were  mere  pawns,  moved  inconsequentially  from  place  to  place 
to  suit  the  convenience  of  various  theories.  In  fact,  however, 
they  were,  I  beUeve,  a  decisive  factor  in  the  development  of 
the  theater.  When  the  first  scene-building  was  erected  in  the 
days  of  Aeschylus  its  location  was  determined  by  the  position 
of  the  parodi ;  it  must  have  been  placed  either  on  a  line  with 
these  or  at  the  most  only  a  few  feet  to  the  rear.  No  other  posi- 
tion, in  my  opinion,  was  practicable  (see  further,  p.  112).  Inci- 
dentally, too,  the  location  of  the  parodi  proves  that  the  theater 
when  reconstructed  was  moved  only  thirty  feet  to  the  north,  not 
fifty  feet  as  is  stated  by  Dorpfcld  (p.  22). 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH   CENTURY 


33 


Unfortunately,  however,  the  angle  which  the  parodi  formed 
with  the  axis  of  the  theater,  that  is,  their  direction,  is  not  free 
from  doubt.  Some  have  held  that  this  was  a  right  angle  (Fig. 
196) ;  others,  an  obtuse  angle  with  the  vertex  toward  the  audi- 
torium (Fig.  19a).  But  with  the  parodi  in  the  position  which  we 
may  now  believe  them  to  have  had,  the  second  assumption  at 
least  appears  to  be  untenable.  The  parodus  to  the  west  of  the 
terrace  would  on  this  hypothesis  have  passed  over  the  old  retain- 
ing wall  (Fig.  14,  D)  which,  as  we  saw  above,  was  probably  con- 


FiG.  21.  —  Plan  to  Illustrate  the  Conjectural  Direction  of  the  Parodi 
AND  the  Front  of  the  Auditorium  of  the  Aeschylean  Theater. 


structed  during  the  early  years  of  the  fifth  century.  If,  however, 
we  draw  a  line  through  the  two  extant  portions  of  this  wall  and 
extend  it  to  the  orchestra-terrace,  this  line  joins  the  latter  just 
behind  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  western  'paraskenion,  at 
the  very  point  indeed  where  the  assumed  chord  AB  (Fig.  14)  cuts 
the  arc  of  the  circle  (Fig.  21).  This  striking  coincidence  may  of 
course  be  merely  accidental,  but  when  we  observe  that  a  corre- 
sponding line  drawn  from  the  terrace-wall  to  the  eastern  edge 
of  the  precinct  leads  almost  exactly  to  the  same  place  as  does 
the  fourth-century  parodus,  the  coincidence  appears  to  become 
significant.  For  the  eastern  parodus  of  the  Lycurgean  theater 
led  apparently  to  the  end  of  the  famous  Street  of  the  Tripods. 


34  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

It  was  along  this  road  that  Pausanias  passed  on  his  way  from  the 
Prytaneum  to  the  precinct  of  Dionysus  (I,  20,  1),  and  he  left  the 
precinct  by  the  same  road  in  order  to  inspect  the  Odeum  of  Pericles, 
which  stood  a  short  distance  to  the  east  of  the  theater.  A  con- 
siderable portion  of  this  street  can  still  be  traced  by  the  remains 
of  many  of  the  dedicatory  monuments  which  in  ancient  times 
lined  its  course.  And  the  fact  that  similar  monuments  were 
set  up  in  the  parodi  of  the  theater  suggests  that  these  passage- 
ways were  in  a  sense  a  continuation  of  this  road.  Where  the 
"Portal  of  Dionysus"  (Andocides,  De  Mysteriis,  38)  was  situated, 
has,  I  believe,  never  been  determined.  But  there  is  little  doubt 
that  it  was  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  precinct  and  probably, 
judging  from  the  slope  of  the  land,  near  its  northeastern  corner.^^ 
It  appears  therefore  to  be  a  not  unreasonable  conjecture  that 
the  main  portal  of  the  precinct  stood  at  the  end  of  the  Street  of 
the  Tripods,  and  further  that  the  eastern  parodus  of  the  theater 
was  so  arranged  as  to  lead  directly  to  this  entrance-way  and  the 
road  beyond.  If  these  hypotheses  have  any  semblance  of  like- 
lihood, we  may  conjecture  that  in  the  early  days  the  lines  of  the 
parodi  formed  an  obtuse  angle  whose  vertex  pointed  away  from 
the  auditorium,  and  that  later  when  the  theater  was  moved 
nearer  to  the  Acropolis  this  angle  was  reversed  in  order  that  the 
eastern  parodus  should  still  lead  to  the  portal  of  the  precinct. 
Should  this  be  granted,  it  would  follow  that  the  front  boundaries 
of  the  early  auditorium  extended  in  northerly  directions  from  the 
orchestra-terrace,  not  in  southerly  directions  as  in  the  reconstructed 
building.  These  assumed  relationships  are  indicated  in  figure 
21.  The  fact  that  at  first  the  seats  of  the  auditorium  were  merely 
wooden  bleachers  (iKpia)  would  be  an  additional  reason  for  mak-. 
ing  the  extremities  of  the  wings  cling  as  closely  as  possible  to  the 

62  DOrpfeld,  Das  c/riechische  Theater,  p.  11  :  "Naeh  den  Bodenverhaltnissen 
muss  dies  Thor  nicht  weit  von  der  N.  ().  Ecke  des  Hieron  gelegen  haben." 
Judeich,  Topogrnphie  ran  Athen,  p.  282:  "Man  darf  den  .  .  .  Haupteingang 
naeh  dem  Geliinde  wie  nach  den  schriftstellerischen  Nachrichten  mit  Sicherheit 
avif  der  Ostseite  vermuten." 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH    CENTURY  35 

hillside.  Danger  to  life  and  limb  would  thereby  be  lessened 
and  at  the  same  time  economy  of  construction  greatly  increased. 
However  this  may  be,  let  us  note  in  conclusion  that  the  parodi 
in  the  early  period  sloped  gently  upward  to  the  orchestra-terrace  ^^ 
—  a  fact  that  appears  to  have  a  significant  bearing  upon  the 
interpretation  of  certain  passages  in  the  fifth-century  dramas 
(p.  38). 

There  appears,  accordingly,  to  be  good  reason  for  believing 
that  in  the  time  of  Aeschylus  the  auditorium  was  not  so  large 
as  in  the  later  centuries  (see  also  p.  10).  And  let  us  remember 
throughout  this  discussion  that  we  are  dealing  with  the  formative 
period  of  the  Greek  theater,  and  that  this  building  at  Athens 
was  the  model  after  which  all  other  Greek  theaters  were  more 
or  less  closely  patterned.  It  itself  attained  to  completed  form 
only  as  the  result  of  gradual  changes  and  repeated  readjustments. 

This  remark  applies  to  still  another  feature  of  the  Lycurgean 
auditorium  and  in  fact  of  most  of  those  which  were  constructed 
in  Hellenic  times.  This  is  the  divergence  between  the  curve  of 
the  lower  rows  of  seats  and  that  of  the  orchestra-circle.  As 
the  seats  in  the  Aeschylean  period  were  arranged  about  the  circle 
of  the  orchestra-terrace,  this  divergence  appears  to  have  been 
due  originally  to  accident  rather  than  to  design  (Fig.  20).  This 
arrangement  possessed  such  obvious  advantages  that  it  was 
retained  and  doubtless  improved  when  the  theater  was  recon- 
structed. 

The  question  as  to  the  character  of  the  structure  which  appears 
to  have  occupied  the  southern  segment  of  the  orchestra-terrace 
in  the  space  between  the  paraskenia  still  remains  for  considera- 
tion. I  have  already  stated  that  in  my  opinion  this  was  the 
Aeschylean  scene-building,  and  the  reasons  for  this  conclusion 
I  shall  set  forth  in  my  closing  chapter.     Let  me  state  however 

^  Das  (/riechische  Theater,  pp.  188,  189,  367  ;  Noack,  op.  cit.,  p.  5.  But 
Noack's  attempt  (pp.  33  ff.)  to  prove  that  Aeschylus  ordinarily  made  use  of  but 
a  single  parodus  is  most  unconvincing. 


36  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

that  the  theory  that  a  stage  occupied  this  space  appears  to  me 
whoU}'  untenable.  The  reasons  why  one  cannot  accept  the 
assumption  of  a  stage  in  the  fifth-century  theater  are  admirably 
summarized  by  Flicldnger  in  his  recent  book  on  the  Greek  theater,^* 
and  need  not  here  be  repeated.  As  Flickinger  remarks  (p.  91)  : 
"The  only  tangible  argument  for  a  stage  of  any  height  in  the 
fifth  century  is  afforded  by  the  occurrence  of  the  words  dvu^atVctv 
(to  ascend)  in  Aristophanes'  Acharnians  (vs.  732),  Knights  (vs. 
149)  and  Wasps  (vs.  1342),  and  Kara/^aivuv  (to  descend)  in  his 
Wasps  (vs.  1514)  and  Women  in  Council  (vs.  1152)."  For 
man}'  years  these  five  passages  have  been  bandied  about  as  in 
a  game  of  battledore  and  shuttlecock,  but  the  attempt  to  inter- 
pret them  as  proofs  of  a  raised  stage  ^^  or  of  a  "difference  in 
level  between  the  orchestra  and  the  floor  of  the  proscenium 
colonnade"  ^^  received  its  coup  de  mart  at  the  hands  of  White  as 
long  ago  as  1891.^^  In  at  least  three  of  the  passages  in  question  ^^ 
the  words  "ascend"  and  "descend"  appear  to  have  the  derived 
meaning  "come  on"  and  "go  off"  respectively,  and  they  acquired 
these  meanings,  I  beheve,  from  the  fact  that  in  the  early  theater 
the  parodi  sloped  upward  to  the  orchestra-terrace. 

64  The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1918),  pp.  50,  00, 78  ff.    See  also  Capps, 
"The  Greek  Sta<;e  accordins?  to  the  Extant  Dramas,"  Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Assoc 
XXII  (1891),  5  ff.  ;  White, ""The  Stage  in  Ari.stophane.s, "  Harv.  Stud.  Class. 
Phil.  II  (1891),  1.59  ff.  ;    Reisch,  Das  griechische    Theater   (1896),  pp.  188  ff. 
For  the  opposing  view  see  Haigh,  op.  cit,  pp.  140  ff. 

65  See  e.r/.  Haigh,  op.  cit.,  pp.  166,  167  ;  Feusterbiisch.  Die  Buhne  des  Aris- 
tophanes (1912),  pp.  1  ff. 

66  This  is  Flickinger's  view  (op.  clt.,  p.  91).  See  also  liees,  "The  Function 
of  the  Hpodvpov  in  the  Production  of  Greek  Plays,"  Class.  Phil.  X  (1915),  128, 
and  note  2. 

67  Op.  cit.,  pp.  164  ff.  (note  25)-.  White's  interpretation  of  Wasps  (vss. 
1.341-43),  however,  is  not  conclusive.  It  may  well  be,  as  the  scholiast  remarks, 
that  "  the  old  man  standing  on  something  In'gh  coaxes  the  woman  to  come  to 
him"  (ewi  nvos  fierewpov  6  -yepuiv  icpeffTcbs  wpocKaXetTaL  irpocrKOpi.^6fj.evos  rrjv  iraipav). 

68  The  interpretation  of  Wasps  (vs.  1.342)  is  in  doubt  (see  note  28).  In  Wasps. 
(vs.  1514,  oiTap  Kara^ariov  y'  iw'  avrovs  p-oi)  Kara^aivetv  means  in  certamen 
descendere.  The  objection  raised  by  an  anonymous  writer  in  the  Litter arisches 
Centralblutt  for  1894  (p.  443)  that  Kara^aiveiv  when  followed  by  iirl  and  the 
accusative  cannot  have  this  meaning,  and  l)y  MuUer  (Philologus,  Supp.  VII 
(1889-90),  10)  that  it  may  be  so  used  of  thini/s,  as  a  prize  or  goal,  but  not  of 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH    CENTURY  37 

In  the  Knicjhts  (vss.  147  ff.)  the  two  slaves,  Demosthenes  and 
Nicias,  eager  to  find  some  means  of  ridding  themselves  of  their 
cruel  master  Paphlagon,  the  leather-seller,  have  just  read  an 
oracle  which  states  that  "a  sausage-seller  ousts  the  leather-seller." 

Nicias  exclaims : 

A  sausage-seller  !  ^^     Goodness,  what  a  trade ! 
Where-ever  shall  we  find  one  ? 

Demos.  That's  the  question. 

Nicias.  Why  here  comes  one  (irpoa-^pxeTai),  'tis  providential  surely, 
Bound  for  the  agora. 

Demos,   {calling)  Hi,  come  hither,  here  ! 

You  dearest  man,  you  blessed  sausage-seller ! 
Step  up  (dvdffaive)  a  savior  to  the  state  and  us. 

S.  S.     Eh!     What  are  you  shouting  at? 

Demos.  Come  here  this  instant 

And  hear  your  wonderful,  amazing  luck. 

The  scholia  on  the  word  dva/3uive  in  this  passage  are  of  peculiar 
interest.  One  scholiast  remarks:  "He  means  that  the  sausage- 
seller  should  come  up  from  the  parodus  on  to  the  stage"  ;  another 
adds:  "Why  from  the  parodus?  This  explanation  is  not  neces- 
sary. It  should  be  observed  that  'to  come  up'  means  'to  come 
in  upon  the  stage'  just  as  'to  go  down'  means  'to  retire  from  the 
stage'.  This  use  of  the  words  arose  from  the  ancient  practice."^" 
White  writes : 

Here  then  is  a  commentator  who  believed,  as  the  moderns  also  gen- 
erally have  believed,  that  there  was  a  stage  in  the  time  of  Aristophanes, 
transmitting  the  tradition  that  the  words  dvajSalveiv  and  Karapalveiv  when 
thus  used  by  the  poet  had  lost  all  sense  of  elevation  and  descent.  Before 
Aristophanes'  time  they  had  become  technical  "stage"  terms.  This  came 
about,  he  says,  "from  the  ancient  practice."     He  is  referring  to  the  tradi- 

persons  (cited  with  approval  by  Fensterbusch.  Die  Buhne  den  Aristophanes 
(1912),  p.  8)  is  merely  captious  criticism. 

69  Translation  of  B.  B.  Rogers  (George  Bell  ami  Sons). 

'0  dm/Saii'e  •  iva^  (prjcriv.  eK  r^s  napSSov  eVt  to  Xoyuov  dvafSfi.  5id  ri  odv  iK  ttjs 
irapodov  ;  tovto  yap  ovk  dvayKalov.  XeKriov  ovv  6ti  dvafiaiveiv  iX^yero  rd  inl  to 
Xoyeiov  ilcTL^vai.  &  Kal  TrpocrKeiTai.  Xiyerai  yap  Kara^aiveiv  to  aTraXXaTTeadai. 
ei'Teudev  dirb  tov  iraXaiov  'ddovs.  .  .  .  la's  iv  dv/j.eXr]  5e  to  dvajiaiveLv.  See  also 
Suidas,  s.v.  dvd^aive.  For  the  form  of  the  scholia  in  Codex  Eavennas  see 
Rutherford,  Scholia  Aristophanica,  II,  18. 


38  THE    GREEK    THEATER 

tion  that  when  tragedy  arose  from  the  dithyrambic  chorus  and  a  ' '  speaker ' ' 
was  first  introduced  the  latter  took  his  place  upon  the  elevation  afforded 
by  the  so-called  eXeo?  [sacrificial  table]  or  0vfx^\r]  [altar-step]. 

This  explanation,  however,  in  spite  of  its  antiquity  (note  70) 
and  its  acceptance  by  a  number  of  modern  scholars,  appears  to 
me  to  be  less  likely  than  the  one  suggested  above.  When  the 
actor  in  the  pre-Aeschylean  period  mounted  the  table  or  the  altar- 
step  (assuming  this  tradition  to  be  correct),  he  was  already  in 
the  presence  of  the  audience ;  whereas  if  in  the  early  years  of  the 
fifth  century  the  dressing  booths  for  the  actors  stood  at  the  outer 
ends  of  the  parodi  and  if  the  latter  sloped  up  to  the  orchestra, 
nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  for  the  expressions  "go  up" 
and  "go  down"  to  acquire  the  meanings  "go  on"  and  "go  off." 

This  explanation  at  any  rate  exactly  suits  the  passages  from 
Aristophanes.  In  the  Knights,  for  example,  when  Nicias  catches 
sight  of  the  sausage-seller  and  exclaims  :  "Why  here  comes  one" 
(Trpoa-epx^raL) ,  the  latter  is  still  at  a  considerable  distance  down  the 
parodus-slope.  "Hi,  come  hither,  here!  (Scvpo  8cvpo)",  shouts 
Demosthenes.  "You  dearest  man,  come  up  here  (dva/3atve)." 
"Eh!"  replies  the  fellow,  stopping  and  staring  vacantly  toward 
the  others,  "What  are  you  shouting  at ?  (ri  eVrt;  rt  p.€  KaXure;) ". 
"Come  here,"  answers  Demosthenes,  "and  hear  your  wonderful 
amazing  luck." 

Thereupon  the  sausage-seller  advances  into  the  orchestra-area 
and  after  setting  down  his  dresser  and  his  wares  learns  that  he 
is  to  become  the  "  mighty  ruler  of  imperial  Athens." 

Demos.     You  see  those  people  on  the  tiers?     S.  S.     I  do. 

Demos.     You  shall  be  over-lord  of  all  those  people, 
The  Agora  and  the  Harbors  and  the  Pnyx. 
You'll  trim  the  generals,  trample  down  the  Council, 
Fetter,  imprison,  make  the  Town-hall  your  brothel. 

S.  S.     What,  I  ?         Demos.     Yes,  you  yourself.     And  that's  not  all. 
For  mount  you  up  upon  the  table  here  (iiravd^T]di  Kdiri  roijXeov  Todl) 
And  view  the  islands  lying  all  around. '^ 

'1  Verses  162  ff.,  translation  of  Rogers. 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH   CENTURY  39 

It  is  generally  assumed  that  when  the  sausage-seller  is  first 
addressed  he  has  already  appeared  upon  the  scene,  that  is,  that 
he  is  already  in  the  orchestra.  But  the  assumption  is  unnecessary 
and,  I  confidently  beUeve,  is  wrong.  So  in  the  Acharnians  (vss. 
731,  732),  when  the  Megarian  comes  to  the  market  which  Dicae- 
opolis  has  set  up  in  the  orchestra,  and  says  to  his  children,  whom 
he  intends  to  garb  as  pigs  and  offer  for  sale  : 

"Puir  bairns  o'  a  puirer  feyther, 
Come  up  {&fj.lBaTe)  to  get  yer  bannock,  an'  ye  may,"  '^ 

the  little  girls  are  following  at  a  distance  and  have  not  yet  reached 
the  orchestra.  The  suggestion  ^^  that  the  children  mount  a  table 
to  be  exposed  for  sale  is  hardly  plausible  ;  they  have  not  yet  been 
disguised.  Equally  unconvincing  is  the  alternative  explanation 
offered  by  Reisch  that  their  father  takes  them  into  his  arms. 
In  any  case  this  scene,  like  that  in  the  Knights,  affords  no  evidence 
for  the  presence  of  a  stage,  nor  yet  for  a  proskenion  with  a  floor 
"raised  a  step  or  two  above  the  orchestra  level." ^*  Dicaeopolis 
had  arranged  his  market  in  the  orchestra,  not  in  the  columned 
proskenion,  and  besides  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the 
proskenia  had  such  a  stylobate.  The  third  passage  {Women  in 
Council,  vs.  1152)  Ukewise  shows  that  there  cannot  have  been  a 
stage,  as  White  (pp.  168  ff.)  abundantly  proved;  (eV  oo-o)  Kara- 
/Satms)  merely  means  "while  you  are  departing." 

But  whatever  the  origin  of  the  use  of  (dva/8atVetv)  and  (Kara- 
/SatWv)  as  technical  "stage"  terms,  the  slope  of  the  parodi 
affords,  I  believe,  an  adequate  interpretation  of  at  least  two 
passages  in  Euripides  in  which  actors  complain  of  the  steepness 
of  the  ascent.'^  Thus  in  the  Electra  (vss.  489  ff.)  the  aged  guardian, 
now  a  shepherd,  enters  laden  with  gifts  for  Electra  and  her  guests. 

"  Translation  of  Tyrrell. 

73  Starkie,  ed.,  Acharnians,  p.  154 ;  Keisch,  Das  griechische  Theater,  p.  190. 
Reisch  meutions  the  explanation  adopted  in  the  text  but  does  not  adhere  to  it. 

7^  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  68. 

'">  So  Reisch  (op.  cit,  pp.  188,  189),  but  with  vacillation. 


40  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

While  still  in  the  parodus,  albeit  near  its  upper  end,  he  pauses 
for  a  moment's  rest  and  speaking  to  himself  as  he  gazes  in  the 
direction  of  the  cottage,  where  lives  Electra,  says : 

Where  is  my  honored  mistress,  my  loved  child, 
Daughter  of  Agamemnon,  once  my  charge? 
Steep  to  her  house  and  difficult  the  ascent. 

Again  he  moves  forward,  saying  to  himself  the  while : 

With  pain  my  age-enfeebled  feet  advance, 
Yet  lab'ring  onwards  with  bent  knees  I  move 
To  seek  my  friends. 

Nearing  the  house  he  sees  Electra  before  the  door  and  presents 

his  gifts  : 

O  daughter,  for  mine  eyes 
Before  the  house  behold  thee,  I  am  come, 
Bringing  this  tender  youngling  from  my  fold,  etc.'^ 

A  similar  scene  occurs  in  the  Ion  (vss.  725  ff.).  Creusa  and 
an  aged  servant  are  on  their  way  to  the  Temple  of  Apollo,  Creusa 
slightly  in  advance  of  the  old  man  who  is  toiling  up  the  slope. 
As  she  reaches  the  orchestra  Creusa  turns  and  says  : 

Thou  reverend  child-ward  of  my  sometime  sire 
Erechtheus,  while  he  walked  yet  in  the  light, 
Bear  up,  and  press  to  yon  God's  oracle. 
That  thou  mayst  share  ray  joy,  if  Loxias  King 
A  boding-pledge  of  sons  hath  uttered  forth. 
'Tis  sweet  with  friends  to  share  prosperity : 
And  if  —  which  God  forbid  —  if  ill  befall, 
'Tis  sweet  to  gaze  in  eyes  of  sympathy. 

Returning  to  the  old  man's  side  and  graciously  supporting  his 
tottering  steps  she  continues  : 

Now  thine  old  loving  tendance  of  my  sire 
I,  though  thy  lady,  render  back  to  thee. 

As  the  two  again  move  forward  they  engage  in  the  following 
dialogue : 

''^  Translation  of  R.  Potter;  the  interpretation  of  the  action  is  my  own. 


THE    THEATER   OF   THE    FIFTH    CENTURY  41 

Old  Servant 

My  daughter,  spirit  worthy  of  noble  sires 

Thou  keepest,  and  thou  hast  not  put  to  shame 

Thine  old  forefathers,  chikh-en  of  the  soil. 

Draw,  draw  me  toward  the  shrines,  and  bring  me  on. 

Steep  is  the  god-ward  path  ;    be   thou  physician 

Unto  mine  age,  and  help  my  toiling  limbs. 

Creusa 
Follow ;   take  heed  where  thou  dost  plant  thy  feet. 

Old  Servant 
Lo  there ! 

Slow  is  the  foot,  still  by  the  mind  outstripped. 

Creusa 
Try  with  thy  staff  the  ground ;   lean  hard  thereon. 

Old  Servant 
Blind  guide  is  this  when  mine  eyes  serve  so  ill. 

Creusa 
Sooth  said ;   yet  yield  not  thou  to  weariness. 

Old  Servant 
I  would  not,  but  my  lost  strength  I  command  not. 

They  are  now  before  the  temple  and  Creusa,  turning,  says  to 
the  chorus : 

Women,  which  do  leal  service  at  my  loom 
And  shuttle,  show  what  fortune  hath  my  lord 
Found  touching  issue,  for  which  cause  we  came." 

Of  course  the  steepness  of  the  parodi  was  not  so  great  as  these 
scenes  suggest;  the  poet  exaggerates  for  the  sake  of  dramatic 
effect.  But  the  assumption  that  in  these  scenes  the  actors  were 
silent  until  after  they  had  attained  the  orchestra  renders  their 

"  Translation  of  A.  S.  Way  (Loeb  Classical  Library,  1912);  as  before,  how- 
ever, the  dramatic  interpretation  is  my  own. 


42  THE   GREEK   THEATER 

interpretation  more  difficult.  In  any  case  they  afford  no  justi- 
fication for  supposing  that  the  scene-building  stood  on  a  higher 
level  than  the  orchestraJ^  Before  pursuing  this  matter  further, 
however,  let  us  inquire  what  evidence  the  dramatic  literature 
of  the  fifth  century  affords  for  the  reconstruction  of  this  building. 
To  this  inquiry  the  passages  which  have  just  been  quoted  form 
a  fitting  introduction. 

■^8  Nor  for  the  assumption  of  a  "Chorbuhne"  (Weissmann,  Die  scenische 
Auffilhrung  der  griechischoi  Dramen  des  V.  Jahrhunderts,  1893,  p.  53). 

Two  other  passages  in  which  an  ascent  is  mentioned  are  The  Madness  of 
Heracles  of  Euripides,  vss.  119  ff.  and  Aristophanes'  Lysistrata,  vs.  286.  Both 
are  lyrical,  and  the  steepness  is  perhaps  wholly  feigned. 


IV 

THE   EVIDENCE   OF  THE  DRAMAS  ^9 

Our  chief  source  of  information  regarding  the  types  of  back- 
ground in  use  in  the  fifth  century  and  the  various  settings  em- 
ployed are  the  texts  of  the  plays  themselves.  These  abound 
in  hints  of  inestimable  value,  and  yet  owing  to  the  almost  com- 
plete lack  of  stage  directions  such  evidence  as  may  be  gathered 
from  a  study  of  the  texts  must  be  used  with  caution.  In  some 
cases  a  reference  is  too  fleeting  to  be  of  substantial  service,  or 
too  vague  to  place  a  decision  beyond  the  pale  of  uncertainty. 
Thus  in  the  Persians  of   Aeschylus  the  mention  of   'Hhis   an- 

'9  Selected  Bibliogi-aphy  : 

Miiller,  Lehrbuch  der  griechischen  Buhnenalterthnmer  (1886),  pp.  107  ff.,  136  ff. 
Although  antiquated,  this  book  is  still  a  useful  collection  of  material.  As  all 
subsequent  treatises  have  been  influenced  by  Dorpfeld's  discoveries,  the 
Buhnenalterthnmer  may  be  said  to  close  the  pre-Diirpfeldian  period.  An 
announcement  of  the  discoveiy  of  the  fifth-century  theater  is  given  in  the 
Nachtrdge,  pp.  415,  416. 

von  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,  '•  Die  Biihne  des  Aischylos,'''  Hermes,  XXI 
(1886),  597  ff.     See  note  40. 

Harzmann,  Qiuiestiones  Scaenlcae  (1889).  This  dissertation  is  noteworthy  as 
being  the  earliest  attempt  to  classify  the  evidence  of  the  dramas  with  refer- 
ence to  the  stage  question  ;  its  conclusions  are  wrong. 

White,  "The  Stage  in  Aristophanes,"  Harv.  Stud.  Class.  Phil.,  II  (1891), 
159  ff.     Excellent. 

Capps,  "The  Greek  Stage  According  to  the  Extant  Dramas,"  Trans.  Am.  Phil. 
Assoc.  XXII  (1891),  1  ff.     A  most  useful  treatise. 

Weissmann,  Die  scenische  Auffllhning  der  Dramendes  V.  Jahrhunderts  (1893). 

Prickard,  "The  Relative  Position  of  Actors  and  Chorus  in  the  Theatre  in  the 
Fifth  Century  b.c,"  Anu  Jour.  Phil.  XIV  (1893),  68  ff.,  198  ff.,  273  ff. 

Reisch,   Das  griechische  Theater  (1896),  pp.  176  ff. 

Robert,  "Die  Szenerie  des  Aias,  der  Eirene  und  des  Prom&theus,''''  Hermes, 
XXXI  (1896),  .530  ff. 

Bolle,  Die  Biihne  des  Sophokles  (1902)  ;  Die  Biihne  des  Aeschylus  (1906). 

Haigh,  The  Attic  Theatre  (see  note  11). 

Fensterbusch,  Die  Biihne  des  Aristophanes  (1912). 

Noack,  ^KijvT]  TpaytKi^  (see  note  40). 

Flickinger,  The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (see  note  11). 
For  other  titles  see  the  following  footnotes. 

4.3 


44  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

cient  house"  (toBc  o-re'yos  apxa-iov,  VS.  141)  is  so  indefinite  and 
isolated  that  one  may  not  be  certain  which  building  is  intended, 
whether  senate-house  or  palace,  or  even  whether  any  building 
whatever  was  actually  represented.^"  Later  in  the  same  play 
the  ghost  of  Darius  rises  from  the  tomb,  but  what  the  appearance 
of  the  tomb  was  and  where  it  was  placed  cannot  be  determined.^^ 
So  in  the  Peace  of  Aristophanes,  although  it  is  clear  that  two  build- 
ings are  represented,  one  the  house  of  Trygaeus,  the  other  the 
palace  of  Zeus,  yet  so  vague  are  the  hints  afforded  by  the  text 
that  a  minute  consideration  of  the  entire  action  of  the  play  is 
necessary  to  show  that  the  house  of  Zeus  (t^v  oIkluv  ttjv  tov  Atd?, 
vs.  178)  stands  above  that  of  Trygaeus,  and  even  this  conclusion 
is  contested. ^- 

Or  again  a  suspicious  fullness  of  detail  may  characterize  a 
description.  An  instance  of  this  sort  occurs  in  the  Ion  of  Euripides. 
The  background  represents  the  temple  of  Apollo  at  Delphi  (vs. 
66),  and  the  scene  in  which  Ion  singing  the  while  honors  the 
prophet-shrine  with  his  matutinal  service  (KaXoV  ye  tov  ttoVov,  w  | 

^o2(3e,   aoL    irpo    Soyu-wv  Xarptvia  |  ti/awv   pxivTelov   eSpav   VSS.    128—130)   IS 

one  of  the  most  beautiful  creations  of  this  gifted  poet : 

And  I  in  the  toil  that  is  mine  —  mine  now 
And  from  childhood  up,  —  with  the  bay's  young  bough, 
;■  And  with  WTeathed  garlands  holy,  will  cleanse 

1  The  portals  of  Phoebxxs  ;    with  dews  from  the  spring 

so  The  chorus  propose  to  seat  themselves  in  "  this  ancient  house  "  and  to  de- 
liberate upon  the  possible  fortunes  of  the  war,  but  they  are  prevented  from  doing 
so  by  the  entrance  of  the  queen,  and  the  proposal  comes  to  naught.  Scholars 
have  long  been  divided  over  the  question  of  the  setting,  many  denying  that  a 
hou'^e  was  represented  (so,  most  recently,  Flickinger,  op.  cit,  p.  226),  others 
dissenting.  Among  the  latter  are  von  Wilamowitz  (AischijloSj  Interpretationen, 
1914,  p.  43)  ;  cf.  Hemes,  XXXII  (1897),  283,  and  Petersen  (Die  attische  Tra- 
godie,  1915,  p.  554). 

81  An  Altarbau,  Reisch,  Das  griech.  Theater  (1896),  p.  196  ;  a  Teinpelchen  in 
form,  von  Wilamowitz,  Hermes  XXXII  (1897),  393  ;  a  x^m^  T'i?^  in  the  orches- 
tra, Harrison,  Essays  and  Studies  Presented  to   William  JRidgeway  (1913),  pp 
136  ff. 

*2  The  divergent  views  regarding  the  scenic  arrangements  of  this  unique  play 
are  presented  and  discussed  by  Sharpley  iij  his  edition  of  the  Peace  (1905),  pp. 
16  ff. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  45 

Will  I  sprinkle  the  pavement,  and  chase  far  thence 

With  the  shaft  from  the  string 
The  flocks  of  birds ;    the  defilers  shall  flee 

From  his  offerings  holy.     Nor  mother  is  mine 
Neither  father ;    his  temple  hath  nurtured  me. 

And  I  serve  his  shrine.**' 

But  when  the  chorus  Avith  appropriate  gesture  {l8ov  ravS',  aOp-qaov, 
Aepvaiov  vSpav,  kt\.,  VSS.  190,  191  ;   kol  /xav  tovS'  aOprjaov,  kt\.,  VS.   201) 

describes  in  song  a  series  of  sculptured  groups  which  adorned  that 
famous  shrine  (vss.  184-218),  whether  metopes,  as  most  have 
held,  or  in  part  the  more  conspicuous  portions  of  one  of  the 
pediment-groups,  as  Homolle  would  have  us  believe,^*  are  we  to 
assume  that  the  scene-buikling  was  actually  so  elaborately 
decorated?  Probably  not.  Like  the  seashore  in  the  Philodetes 
and  the  darkness  and  mud  in  the  Frogs  and  the  brilliant  stars 
in  the  Rhesus  and  the  moonlight  in  the  Merchant  of  Venice,  these 
sculptural  adornments  in  the  Ion  were  no  doubt  left  to  the 
imagination.  So  the  "marble  walls"  of  verse  206^^  are  purely 
imaginary ;  the  scene-building  of  the  fifth  century  was  of  wood. 
Indeed,  even  the  pediment  itself,  assuming  the  correctness 
of  Homolle's  interpretation,  may  have  been  imagined  rather  than 
actually  represented.  The  only  known  reference  to  a  pediment 
in  Greek  dramatic  literature  of  the  fifth  century,  aside  from 
this  dubious  instance  in  the  Io7i  and  possibly  one  other  in  the 
Orestes,  which  will  be  discussed  below  (p.  64),  is  found  in  an 
isolated  fragment  of  the  Hypsipyle  (Fragment  764;  Nauck,  Ed.  2) 
as  restored  by  Valckenaer  :  ^^ 

■  83  Verses  102-111  :  translation  of  A.  S.  Way  (Loeb  Classical  Library,  1912). 

8*  "Mnnmnentsfiiiurc^sdeDelphes,"  Bull,  corres.  hell.,  XXV  (1901), 457-515  ; 
ibicl.,  XXV'I  (1902),  587-639.  For  the  literature  of  the  subject  see  these  articles. 
Weckleiii  in  his  school  edition  of  tlie  Ion  (1912)  accepts  in  the  main  Homolle".s 
conclusions.  1'.  Gardner  writing  in  1899  (Jour.  Hell.  Studies,  XIX  (1899), 263) 
stated  that  he  believed  that  tlie  iiroups  beloncied  to  pediments,  but  were  merely 
"fanciful  and  iina,?i  nary  and  that  \vc  cannot  press  the  text  of  FAU-ipides  to  prove 
that  these  subjects  were  really  represented  at  Delphi." 

85  relxfcri  \atuoi(n.  T5ut  the  word  is  in  doubt.  Murray  reads  TeLxe(T(TL  ;  Weck- 
lein  adopts  the  anonymous  conjecture  TviroLai  :  Hermann  manufactured  riz/cato-i. 

86  Diatribe  in  Euripidis  Perditorum  Dramatum  Reliquias,  p.  214.     The  res- 


4G  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

idori,  TTpbs  aidep   ^^anlWriffai  Kdpas 
ypaiTTOvs  {t   iv  aieT)oi(Ti  wpbiT^Xeipov  rvirovi. 

Look,  tlireet  your  ej^es  toward  the  sky  and  gaze  upon  the  painted 
statues  in  the  gable. 

But  this,  like  the  descriptions  of  the  sculptures  in  the  Ion, 
may  also  be  an  appeal  to  the  imagination  rather  than  to  sight. 
Euripides  displays  a  lively  interest  in  the  arts  and  never  misses 
an  opportunity  to  mention  details  of  architecture,  sculpture  and 
painting.^'^  Sophocles,  on  the  other  hand,  rigidly  excludes  such 
matters  from  his  dramas,^*  and  yet  the  plays  of  both  were  exhibited 
in  the  same  theater  under  similar,  if  not  indeed  precisely  the  same, 
conditions.  This  striking  dissimilitude  between  these  poets 
springs  no  doubt  from  a  difference  of  temperament,  and  its  recog- 
nition counsels  caution. 

The  passages  which  have  been  cited  suggest  some  of  the  diffi- 
culties that  lie  in  the  path  of  the  interpreter,  but  with  the  exer- 
cise of  due  circumspection  and  by  comparing  play  with  play  it 
is  possible  to  glean  from  the  texts  a  considerable  body  of  reliable 
information  regarding  the  outstanding  features  of  the  various 
backgrounds  and  settings  that  were  in  use  in  the  fifth  century. 
It  is  not  our  purpose  to  discuss  these  backgrounds  and  settings 
in  minute  detail,  but  rather  to  consider  them  in  their  larger  aspects 
in  order  to  determine,  if  possible,  what  light  they  may  throw 
upon  the  character  of  the  scene-building  before  which  the  plays 
were  enacted.  As  it  was  customary  to  present  a  series  of  dramas 
in  rapid  succession  (p.  76),  the  question  of  the  changes  of  settings 

toration  is  substantially  correct,  as  the  fragment  is  quoted  by  Galen  (XVIII,  1, 
519)  in  illustration  of  the  use  of  aier6s  in  the  sense  of  "gable." 

87  For  a  convenient  treatment  of  this  subject  see  Huddilston,  The  Attitude  of 
the  Greek  Tragedians  toward  Art  (1898).  See  also  Petersen,  Die  attische  Tra- 
godie  als  Bild-  und  Buhnenkunst  (1915). 

**  The  nearest  approach  is  found  in  Fragment  1025  (Nauck,  ed.  2),  classed 
among  the  dubia  et  spuria  : 

dvrjTol  Si  TToWol  KapSig.  ir\avd}fxevoi 
ISpvcrdfiecrda  irrffxaTiov  Trapaipvxv^ 
OeQv  dydXixar'  iK  \[0wv  ij  xaXK^cui' 
•^  XpvffOTfVKTUv  ij  i\i<p<ivT ivuiv  rvirovz. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF    THE    DRAMAS  47 

also  is  of  vital  importance.  In  this  chapter,  however,  we  shall 
consider  only  the  irreducible  minimum  and  shall  regard  the  plays, 
and  in  some  instances  even  parts  of  plays,  as  detached  and  isolated 
units. 

Greek  drama  is  ordinarily  classed  under  three  main  types. 
First  there  are  the  more  or  less  serious  dramas  known  as  tragedies. 
Of  these,  if  we  include  the  fragmentary  Hypsipyle  of  Euripides 
and  also  such  plays  as  the  Alcestis  and  the  Helen,  which  however 
are  not  tragedies  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  word,  thirty-three 
have  been  preserved.  The  second  type  comprises  the  satyr- 
plays,  of  which  two  specimens  are  extant :  the  Cyclops  of  Euripides 
and  the  mutilated  Ichneutae  or  Trackers  of  Sophocles.  Comedies 
form  the  third  group,  and  of  these  eleven  have  survived  the  ravages 
of  time,  all  from  the  pen  of  that  master-genius  Aristophanes. 
In  addition  to  these  forty-six  more  or  less  complete  plays  ^^  many 
fragments  of  others  have  been  preserved,  and  from  some  of  these 
also  may  be  gleaned  an  occasional  hint  regarding  the  backgrounds 
and  the  settings  that  were  required  for  the  presentation  of  the 
dramas  to  which  they  belonged. 

Vitruvius  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  fifth  book  of  his 
De  Architectura  remarks  :  ^^ 

There  are  three  kinds  of  scenes  [scaenae],  one  called  the  tragic,  second, 
the  comic,  third,  the  satyric.  Their  decorations  are  different  and  unlike 
each  other  in  scheme.  Tragic  scenes  are  delineated  [deformantur]  \vith 
columns,  pediments,  statues,  and  other  objects  suited  to  kings ;  comic 
scenes  exhibit  private  dwellings,  with  balconies  and  views  represent- 
ing rows  of  windows,  after  the  manner  of  ordinary  dwellings ;    satyric 

89  Of  the  tragedies  the  Rhesus,  which  is  of  uncertain  authorship,  perhaps  be- 
longs to  the  fourth  century.  See  '^apps,  "The  Chorus  in  the  Later  Greek 
Drama,"  Papers  of  Am.  School  Class.  Studies  at  Athens,  VI,  400,  where  the 
literature  is  cited.  See  also  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  148.  Of  the  comedies  the 
Ecclesiazusae  appears  to  have  been  performed  in  392  ;  the  Plutus  (revised)  was 
presented  in  388.  According  to  the  schoUast  the  tirst  Plutus  was  exhibited  in 
408.  These  plays  may,  however,  be  grftuped  witli  tliose  of  the  fifth  century, 
from  which  they  do  not  substantially  differ. 

90  Vitruvius  wrote  in  the  time  of  Augustus;  see  Morgan,  Essags  and  Addresses 
(1910,  pp.  159  ff.).  The  translation  is  by  Morgan,  Vitruvius,  Ten  Books  on 
Architecture  (1914). 


48  THE    GREEK    THEATER 

scenes  are  decorated  with  trees,  caverns,  mountains,  and  other  rustic 
objects  delineated  in  landscape  style  [in  topiodis  speciem  deformatis].^^ 

But  this  description  of  the  several  types  of  settings  is  only 
approximately  correct.  The  list  is  not  exhaustive  and  the  classi- 
fication cannot  be  rigidl}^  applied.  The  author  makes  no  men- 
tion, for  example,  of  camp  scenes,  of  which  several  are  known, 
and  says  nothing  of  such  simple  and  colorless  settings  as  were 
used,  for  instance,  in  the  Swp'pliants  of  Aeschylus  and  the  An- 
dromeda of  Euripides.  There  was  too,  at  least  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, a  free  interchange  of  type.  The  Electra  of  Euripides  was 
played  before  a  lowly  cottage,  not  before  a  building  of  regal  mag- 
nificence ;  wliile  such  dramas  as  the  Oedipus  Coloneus,  the  Birds  and 
the  Philoctetes  had  settings  appropriate  to  satyric  plays  according 
to  the  classification  given  by  Vitruvius.  But  Vitruvius  was  not 
writing  about  the  conditions  that  obtained  in  the  fifth  century, 
concerning  which  he  probably  knew  little  or  nothing,  but  about 
those  rather  that  were  in  vogue  hundreds  of  years  later. ^^  It 
is  better  therefore  to  dismiss  his  treatment  of  the  subject  and  to 
make  a  classification  of  our  own  based  upon  a  study  of  the  extant 
texts  themselves.  ^ 

One  of  the  first  facts  to  emerge  from  such  a  study  is  that  the 
dramas,  if  divided  according  to  the  character  and  use  of  the 
background,  fall  naturally  into  at  least  four  groups.  The  first 
of  these  comprises  those  plays,  both  tragedies  and  comedies, 
for  which  the  background  represents  a  single  building :  a  palace, 
a  house,  a  temple,  a  hut,  and  the  like,  as  occasion  demands. 
Usually  in  such  cases  only  one  door,  in  addition  to  the  parodi, 
is  required  for  entrances  and  exits.  In  a  few  instances,  however, 
two  doors  are  so  used,  and  occasionally  even  three.  Examples 
are  the  Agamem7ion,  the  Eumenides.  the  Oedipus  Tyrannns,  the 

91  The  word  topiodis  is  in  doubt ;  MSS.,  topeodi. 

92  The  most  recent  discussion  of  the  Vitruvian  Greek  theater  is  found  inFhck- 
inger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  79  ff.  The  author  eouchides  that  Vitruvius  was  describing 
the  Graeco-Roman  type  of  theater. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  49 

Alcestis,  the  two  Iphigenias,  the  Frogs,^^  the  Wasps,  possibly  also 
the  Lysistrata.^^ 

The  second  group  is  composed  of  plays  for  which  the  setting 
is  a  series  of  houses  or  other  structures,  two  or  three  in  number, 
ranged  side  by  side,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Peace,  one  above  the 
other  (p.  59).  In  the  Andromache  these  represent  the  palace 
of  Neoptolemus  and  a  shrine  of  Thetis ;  in  the  Hecuba,  an  en- 
campment ;  in  the  Clouds,  the  house  of  Strepsiades  and  the 
"Thinking-shop"  of  Socrates;  in  the  Acharnians,  the  houses 
of  Dicaeopolis,  Euripides,  and  Lamachus ;  in  the  Women  at  the 
Thesmophoria,  Agathon's  house  and  the  Thesmophorium ;  *^ 
in  the  Ecclesiazusae  or  Women  in  Council,  the  houses  of  Blepyrus 
and  a  neighbor,  to  which  number  some  would  add  also  the  house 
of  Chremes.  Whether  the  Lysistrata  belongs  in  this  division  is, 
as  we  have  seen,  not  certain. 

In  the  third  group  the  scene  is  a  stretch  of  wild  country  with 
rocks,  trees,  and  the  like,  and  the  entrance  at  the  rear  represents 
the  mouth  of  a  cavern  or  hollow  rock,  as  in  the  Cyclops  and  the 
Birds.  One  of  the  plays  in  this  genre  affords  an  instance  of 
remarkably  minute  indication  of  the  setting.  This  is  the  Philoc- 
tetes  of  Sophocles.  The  orchestra  represents  the  shore  of  Lemnos 
(vss.  Iff.);  the  background,  a  desolate  hillside  in  which  is  a 
"cave  with  twofold  mouth,"  "such  that,"  says  the  poet,  "in 
cold  weather  either  front  offers  a  sunny  seat,  but  in  summer  a 
breeze  wafts  sleep  through  the  tunnelled  grot."  ^^  This  tunnel- 
like cavern  is  the  abode  of  the  stricken  Philoctetes,  and  through 

93  The  assumption  of  two  houses  is  not  necessaiy. 

94  The  setting  required  by  this  play  is  in  doubt.  Some  scholars  (e.g.  van 
Leeuwen,  Fensterbusch)  hold  that  the  Propylaea  alone  was  represented  ;  others 
(e.g.  Haigh),  the  Propylaea  and  the  house  of  Lysistrata;  still  others  (e.g. 
Reisch),the  Propylaea  and  two  houses  ;  while  some  (e.g.  Bethe,  White)  suggest 
a  change  of  setting. 

95  To  assume,  with  van  Leeuwen  and  others,  a  change  of  setting  by  means  of 
the  eccyclemn  (p.  83)  is  quite  unnecessary  in  spite  of  the  scholiast  (vs.  277). 
See  Fensterbusch,  op.  cit. ,  p.  25. 

96  Verses  16  ff. ;  translation  of  Jebb. 


50  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

it  the  hero,  haggard  and  lame,  makes  his  appearance  (vss.  210 
ff.),  and  probably  also  Heracles  at  the  end  of  the  play  (vs.  1409)." 
Near  the  cave  a  spring  is  imagined  to  gush  forth  from  the  rock. 
"A  little  below,"  Odysseus  remarks  to  Neoptolemus,  "on  the 
left  hand  perchance  thou  mayst  see  a  spring,  if  indeed  it  hath 
not  failed"  (etVcp  ia-rl  awv,  VSS.  20,  21)  — a  clear  indication  that 
this  feature  of  the  scene  was  not  included  in  the  physical  set- 
ting. Finally,  the  cavern  is  not  on  a  level  of  the  orchestra, 
but  is.  high  up  (vss.  28,  29),  and  before  it  is  a  level  space  large 
enough  to  accommodate  several  persons  (vss.  219  ff.,  1000  S., 
etc.),  to  which  a  path  leads  up  from  the  shore  below  (vss.  16  ff., 
539,  814,  etc.). 

The  fourth  and  last  division  comprises  those  plays  which  make 
no  use  of  the  back-scene  for  entrances  and  exits,  but  either  ignore 
its  presence  altogether  or  employ  it  to  represent  a  hill,  a  cliff, 
or  other  eminence.  The  earliest  extant  example  of  this  type  is 
the  Suppliants  of  Aeschylus,  where  the  scene  is  a  sacred  precinct 
(oAcros,  vs.  508)  with  a  large  altar  shared  by  several  deities 
(Kotvo^oj|U,ta,  vs.  222),  back  of  which  apparently  there  rises  a 
hill  (Trayos,  VS.  189).^^  For  the  lost  Andromeda  of  Euripides, 
of  which  only  a  few  fragments  survive,  and  for  the  still  more 
fragmentary  Andromeda  of  Sophocles,  the  background  represented 
a  cliff  bordering  on  the  sea,  and  to  this  the  hapless  Andromeda 
was  bound  in  chains  to  be  devoured  by  a  hideous  monster  of 
the  deep.  Similarly  the  scene  of  the  Prometheus  Bound  of  Aes- 
chylus (as  also  of  the  lost  Prometheus  Being  Unbound)  is  a  rugged 
mountain-side  at  "the  furthest  confines  of  the  earth  in  Scythia's 
pathless  waste"  (vs.  1.,  2).     Strictly  speaking,  however,  it  may 

97  See  the  excellent  article  by  Woodhouse,  "The  Scenic  Arrangements  of  the 
Philoctetes  of  Sophocles,''  Jour.  Hell.  Stud.  XXXII  (1912),  239-249. 

98  Some  scholars  identify  the  hill  with  the  altar  (/3a>^6s)  and  suppose  that  Da- 
naus  mounts  to  the  top  of  the  altar.  Von  Wilamowitz  (Aischylos,  Interpreta- 
tlonen,  1914,  pp.  6  ff.)  conjectures  that  the  altar  is  on  the  hill,  which  forms  a  sort 
of  "  Oberblihne.  ■"  It  should  be  noted  that  wdyov  -rrpoai^eiv  (vs.  189)  strictly 
means  "take  refuge  at  the  hill,"  not  on  it,  and  I  believe  accordingly  that  there 
was  some  kind  of  a  structure  behind  the  altar  and  rising  above  it. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  51 

be  that  these  two  plays  do  not  belong  in  this  group,  as  at  the  end 
of  the  Pro7netheus  Bound  Prometheus  and  the  members  of  the 
chorus  are  hurled,  precipice  and  all,  into  the  depths  of  Tartarus. 
There  is  therefore  in  a  certain  sense  a  rear  exit,  but  it  is  of  a  very 
exceptional  form.^^  For  the  Oedipus  Coloneus  of  Sophocles  the 
setting  is  a  sacred  grove  in  whose  depths  Oedipus  and  Antigone 
conceal  themselves  on  the  approach  of  the  chorus  (vss.  113,  114). 
"Look!"  sing  the  chorus, 

Look  !     Who  was  it  ?     Where  abides  he  ? 
In  what  nook  or  corner  hides  he  — 
Of  aU  men  —  of  all  mankind  the  most  presuming? 
Search  about !     Spy  him,  there  ! 
Seek  him  out  everywhere. 

Some  one  has  intruded  on  the  sacred  space ; 

I  the  bound  searching  round 
Cannot  yet  light  upon  his  hiding  place-^"" 

A  setting  similar  to  this  is  required  for  the  latter  half  of  the  Ajax 
(vss.  814  ff. ;  cf.  vaTTos,  vs.  892). '•'i  In  the  mutilated  Ichneutae 
of  Sophocles  a  cave  is  indicated,  but  where  it  was  placed  and  how 
it  was  represented  are  points  that  can  not  be  certainly  determined. 
It  appears  to  have  been  underground,  as  both  von  Wilamowitz  ^''- 
and  Robert  ^^^  pointed  out.  Miss  Harrison  favors  a  mound  (x^/xa 
yrj<;)  placed  at  or  near  the  center  of  the  orchestra. ^°^     The  setting 

99  See  Flickinger,  op.  cit,  pp.  227,  228. 

100  Verses  119  ff. ;  translation  of  Sir  George  Young.     See  Jebb,  §  16. 

101  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  244,  supposes  "  that  one  of  the  side  doors  in  the  front 
of  the  scene-building  was  left  open  to  represent  the  entrance  to  the  glen,  and 
that  around  and  behind  it  were  set  panels  painted  to  suggest  the  wotidland  coast 
and  the  glen.  Into  this  opening  Ajax  collapsed  as  he  fell  upon  his  sword." 
Others  (Jebb,  BoUe,  etc. )  believe  that  trees  and  .shrubbery  were  placed  before 
the  scene-building.  Whatever  the  setting,  there  is  not  a  genuine  rear  exit  in  this 
portion  of  the  play. 

102  "  Die  Sptirhunde  des  Sophokles,"  Neue  Jahrb.  f.  d.  klass.  Alterthum, 
XXIX  (1912),  449  ff.     He  suggests  an  "  ansteigeudes  GelJinde." 

i«3  "Zu  Sophokles'  IXNETTAI,"  Hermes,  XLVII  (1912),  536.  He  supposes 
that  the  Charonian  stairs  were  used. 

'"4  "  Sophocles'  Ichneutae.  col.  9,  vss.  1-7  and  the  dpu/xevov  of  Kyllene  and  the 
Satyrs,"  Essays  and  Studies  Presented  to  William  Eidi/eway  (1913),  pp.  136  ff. 

See  also  Pearson,  Fragments  of  Sophocles  I  (1917),  ff.  224  ft". 


52  THE    GREEK    THEATER 

employed  in  the  Persians  and  the  Seven  against  Thebes  of  Aeschylus 
are  in  doubt.  If  a  building  formed  the  background  in  these 
plays,  as  some  scholars  hold,  they  belong  of  course  in  the  first 
group.  In  the  lake-scene  of  the  Frogs  the  house  (or  houses?) 
which  the  scene-building  represents,  though  visible,  is  ignored. 

The  majority  of  the  plays  which  have  been  preserved,  and  of  the 
others  about  whose  settings  some  knowledge  may  be  gleaned 
from  the  fragments  and  from  ancient  commentators,  make  use 
of  but  a  single  entrance  in  the  back-scene.  A  few  employ  two 
such  entrances ;  a  still  smaller  number,  three ;  some,  none  at 
all.  It  follows  that  the  statement  which  is  repeated  by  many 
modern  authorities,  based  on  the  testimony  of  Vitruvius  and 
Pollux,'"^  that  in  the  Greek  theater  the  background  was  regularly 
provided  with  three  doors  is  far  too  sweeping,  or  at  least  mislead- 
ing. The  most  that  we  can  say,  so  far  at  any  rate  as  the  fifth 
century  is  concerned,  is  that  the  back-scene  was  so  arranged  that 
from  one  to  three  entrances  could  be  provided  as  need  required. 
When  doors  were  employed  they  appear  regularly  to  have  opened 
outward.  ^°^ 

Was  the  door  (or  doors)  in  the  back-scene  approached  by  a 
flight  of  steps?  We  may  confidently  answer  that  it  was  not. 
At  the  most  there  may  have  been  a  single  step  or  sill ;  there  is  no 
trustworthy  evidence,  either  literary  or  archaeological,  that  may 
be  cited  in  support  of  the  assumption  of  a  series  of  steps.  The 
only  passage  in  the  extant  dramas  that  seems  to  warrant  such 
an  assumption  proves  upon  examination  to  be  of  illusory  value. 
This  passage  is  in  the  Iphigenia  among  the  Taurians  of  Euripides, 
verses  96-103.  Orestes  and  Pylades  are  seeking  some  means  of 
entrance  into  the  temple  that  they  may  steal  the  wooden  image 
of  the  goddess,  for  which  they  have  made  their  long  and  perilous 
voyage.  After  recounting  the  object  of  their  mission,  Orestes 
asks  his   companion   what   is   to   be   done.       According  to   the 

105  Vitravius,  V,  6 ;  Pollux,  IV,  124,  120. 

106  Mooney,  The  House-door  on  the  Ancient  Stage  (1914),  pp.  42  ff. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  53 

readings  of    the    manuscripts    the    text    of    the    passage   is    as 
follows  : 

HvXdSri,  av  yap  fiOL  T0v5e  (TvWrjTTTwp  ttSvov, 
tL  dpwfxev  ;   aix<pi^\-i]crTpa  yap  roixoiv  op^s 
vr^TjXd  •  irdrepa  8ix}/jidT0Jv  npoaafx^dffeis 
iKpr]a6fj.e(rda  ;   irCos  Slv  ovv  p.d.doLixev  dv, 
^  XaXKdrevKTa  K\rjdpa  Xvaaures  ixox^ols, 
100  ujv  ovdev  i'cr/j.ei' ;   rjv  d    dvoiyovres  irvXai 

Xijipdwuev  eLcrjidaei.'s  re  fnjxa.vd3p.ev01, 
davovped'.     dXXd  vpiv  ffaveiv.,  pedis  eVt 
(peJuyoypiev,  ^vep  Oeup    evavaroXriaapev. 

Murray  translates : 

Ho,  Pylades, 
Sole  sharer  of  my  quest,  hast  seen  it  all  ? 
What  can  we  next?     Thou  seest  this  circuit  wall 
Enormous?     Must  we  climb  the  public  stair. 
With  all  men  watching?     Shall  we  seek  somewhere 
Some  lock  to  pick,  some  secret  bolt  or  bar  — 
Of  all  which  we  know  nothing?     Where  we  are, 
If  one  man  mark  us,  if  they  see  us  prize 
The  gate,  or  think  of  entrance  anywhere, 
'Tis  death.  —  We  still  have  time  to  fly  for  home : 
Back  to  the  galley  quick,  ere  worse  things  come. 

Similar  is  the  translation  of  Way,  who,  however,  adopts  Paley's 
and  Hermann's  conjecture  of  fi-yj  for  77  in  verse  99  : 

Up  yonder  temple-steps 
Shall  we  ascend  ?     How  then  could  we  learn  more, 
Except  our  levers  force  the  brazen  bolts 
Whereof  we  know  nought  ? 

Both  of  these  interpretations  are  misleading.  The  passage  con- 
tains several  difficulties  —  "omnia  foedissime  corrupta,"  says 
Badham  —  of  which  the  most  glaring  is  the  clause  wv  ovSkv 
iV/xev  (vs.  100),  "of  which  we  know  nothing."  These  words 
make  sheer  nonsense  and  cannot  be  right. '^^  The  best  correction 
perhaps  is  that  proposed  by  Badham:  wS' owSof  Io-i/aev;  "[and] 
thus  enter  by  way  of  the  threshold?"     If  we  adopt  this  or  some 

107  In  his  critical  edition  of  Euripides  Murray  translates:  "Au  seras  aliquas 
clam  solvere  conemur  ?     Sed  nescimus  quales  hie  sint  serae." 


54  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

similar  reading/*^^  17  (vs.  99)  may  be  retained  as  a  correlative  of 
the  preceding  irorepa,  as  it  certainly  should  be.^"^  In  verse  97 
the  word  Sw/Aarcov  also  is  in  doubt  and  has  been  corrected  by 
most  editors,  following  Kirchhoff,  to  KAt/AaKwv/"'  which  occurs 
in  connection  with  Trpoaa/A/Jao-eis  in  the  Seven  against  Thebes 
vs.  466,  the  Phoenician  Women  vss.  489,  1173,  and  the  Bacchae 
vs.  1213 ;  and  further  in  verse  98  Aa^ot^ev  should  probably  be 
substituted  for  ixadoL/xev,  follomng  Sallier  and  most  editors. 
With  these  corrections  the  passage  reads : 

irbrepa  K\ipLa.Kwv  irpoaafx^dcreLS 
iK^rjcrdfxeaOa  ;    ircDs  5.v  ovv  \6.doLp.ev  dv  ; 
ij  ^^aXKoreii/cTa  KXrjdpa  XvaayTes  fjLOxXois 
(bd    ov86y  fcrifiev ; 

Shall  we  mount  to  our  goal  by  a  ladder's  rungs,  or  shall  we  break 
the  lock  and  enter  by  the  door? 

This  is  intelligible  and  seems  to  be  right. ^"  But  whether  these 
textual  changes  and  this  interpretation  be  accepted  or  not,  this 
passage  certainly  may  not  be  cited  as  proof  that  there  was  a  flight 
of  steps  before  the  temple  door.  From  the  modern  point  of  view 
this  may  seem  strange,  but  modern  conditions  and  modern  stage 
practices  should  not  be  permitted  to  obtrude  themselves. ^^^ 

108  Weil  :   dv'   o55as   icrifxiv  ;    Kochly:   (S5'    lepbv   'iaLfxev  ;    Wecklein  :   tSS'    &bvTov 

1U9  Paley's  and  Hermann's  emendation  p.^  (vs.  99)  for  ij  does  violence  to  the 
construction,  besides  making  necessary  the  retention  of  the  absurd  wv  ovdiv 
lafMev.     Tlie  same  is  true  of  Bates'  conjecture  :  ttuis  cLu  odv  na.doLp.fv  dW  \  ij,  kt\. 

no  Weil  remarks  that  if  the  reading  dc^p-druv  be  retained,  "  Ureste  n'indique- 
rait  qu'un  seul  moyen  d'entrer  dans  le  temple,  et  le  conjonction  ^  .  .  .  ne 
s'expliquerait  pas." 

111  Schone-Kochly-Bruhn  (ed.  4,  1894),  remark  :  "  Orest  stellt  die  Alternativ 
auf  :  wollen  wir  '  den  Zugang  zu  dem  Hause  ganz  zu  Ende  gehen  .  .  .  oder 
wieder  nach  Hanse  zuriickkehren  ?  '  "     This  is  clearly  wrong. 

112  Robert,  Hermes,  XXXII  (1897),  437,  assumed  that  there  were  steps  before 
the  temple  in  the  Ion;  but  without  warrant.  We  should  remember  further 
that  the  Greek  private  houses  were  entered  directly  from  the  street  level,  or  at 
most  had  only  one  step  or  sill.  The  same  was  ti'ue  even  of  early  palaces;  com- 
pare the  remains  of  the  palace  at  Palatitza. 

Bruhn,  Lucubrationum  Euripidearum  capita  selecta  (1880),  pp.  276,  277, 
argued  that  because  of  the  manuscript  reading  Trpbs  d/xlidaets  (so  Ziegler),  and 
because  eK/3aiy£t;' cannot  mean  "ersteigen  den  Stuifen,"  and  because  there  was 
not  room  for  steps  on  the  narrow  stage,  therefore  the  steps  led  from  the  orchestra 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF    THE    DRAMAS  55 

Archaeological  evidence  for  the  existence  of  a  step,  or  steps, 
and  even  of  a  platform  before  the  central  door  has  been  found  by 
certain  writers  in  a  number  of  vase-paintings  from  southern 
Ital}^  dating  from  the  fourth  and  third  centuries  (Chap.  7). 
These  paintings  depict  little  buildings  (aediculae),  of  which  the 
best  example  is  that  of  the  famous  Medea-vase  from  Canosa. 
The  building  pictured  on  this  vase  (Fig.  24,  p.  96)  has  a  stylobate 
of  two  steps  and  the  whole  is  interpreted,  together  with  the 
other  aediculae  (Figs.  27-29,  pp.  102  ff.)  as  a  reproduction  more  or 
less  accurate  of  a  portico  before  the  central  door  of  the  scene- 
building.  But,  as  we  shall  show  later  (Chap.  7),  the  attempt 
to  connect  these  paintings  with  the  early  theater  and  to  place 
the  proposed  interpretation  upon  them  is  wholly  without  warrant. 
Dorpfeld's  well-laiown  reconstruction  of  the  scene-building  (Fig. 
23,  p.  95)  with  such  a  projecting  portico  borrowed  from  these 
vase-paintings  is  most  unsatisfactory. 

That  however  a  prothyron  or  portico  formed  an  important  fea- 
ture of  the  setting  for  certain  plays  cannot  be  gainsaid."^  In 
the  Iphigenia  among  the  Taurians,  vss.  1157  ff.,  the  text  shows 
beyond  a  peradventure  not  only  that  there,  was  a  vestibule,  but 
that  the  space  between  the  columns  at  the  front  and  the  door  of 
the  temple  was  of  considerable  extent.  Thoas  is  about  to  enter 
the  temple  and  is  advancing  between  the  columns  of  the  vestibule 
when  the  door  opens  and  Iphigenia  comes  out  bearing  in  her 
arms  the  wooden  image  of  the  goddess.     She  exclaims  (vs.  1159)  : 

to  the  stage.  This  was  opposed  by  Miiller,  Philologus,  Supp.  VI  (1891),  49, 
who  rightly  insists  that  we  must  read  Trpoa-afj.l3dfffis,  and  holds  that  eK/JatVeti', 
though  regularly  intransitive  in  prose,  may  perhaps  in  poetry  govern  the  accu- 
sative case  ;  compare  Septem  vs.  466. 

113  See  the  excellent  article  by  Rees,  "The  Function  of  the  UpdOvpov  in  the 
Production  of  Greek  Plays,"  Class.  Phil.  X  (191.5),  117  ff.  Curiously  it  was 
not  until  the  last  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century  that  the  signiticance  of  the 
portico  began  to  be  generally  recognized.  The  literature  is  cited  by  Rees  ami 
Legrand  (Daos  (1910),  pp.  4.3-5  ff. ;  English  translation  by  Loeb  under  the  title 
The  New  Greek  Comedy  (1917),  pp.  .348 ff.).  Haigh  (The  Attic  Theatre,  ed.  3, 
1907)  completely  ignores  it;  Barnett  (The  Greek  Drama,  1901,  p.  74,  note  1), 
wrongly  supposes  that  ^ "■  the  prothyra  or  porches  were  in  all  probability  repre 
sented  by  painting." 


56  THE    GREEK    THEATER 

Ava^.  e'x    avTov  woda  cbv  ev  irapaffTdciv. 

Sire,  stay  thy  foot  there  in  the  portico. 

To  suppose,  as  some  scholars  do,  that  such  a  vestibule  was  repre- 
sented merely  by  painting  is  absurd.  In  the  lost  Cresphontes 
of  Euripides,  Merope,  if  we  may  believe  the  account  given  by 
Hyginus,"*  rushes  into  the  portico  ("chalcidicum,"  cf.  Vitruvius, 
V,  1,  4)  armed  with  an  ax  that  she  may  kill  the  stranger  who  is 
sleeping  within,  not  knowing  that  he  is  her  own  son.  She  is 
prevented  from  committing  the  murder  by  the  intervention  of  her 
aged  attendant.  Plutarch  tells  us  ^^^  that  as  Merope  lifted  her 
ax  to  strike  her  son  the  audience  was  thrilled  with  fear  and  alarm 
lest  she  do  violence  to  the  lad  before  the  old  man  could  intervene. 
Evidently  therefore  the  scene,  though  enacted  in  the  vestibule, 
was  in  full  view  of  the  spectators.  In  the  Hypsipyle  of  Euripides 
(Frag.  1,  col.  2,  15  ff.)  the  chorus  sings  : 

tI  ffii  irapa  irpoOvpois^  <pl\a  ; 
irbrepa  5u)fxaTos  elaodovs 
ffaipeis  fj  bpbdov  eiri  ir^Oif} 
jSdXXets  oia  re  8ov\a,  ktX.         • 

Why  art  thou,  dear  one,  at  the  vestibule?  Art  thou  sweeping  the 
palace-entrance  or  sprinkling  water-drops  upon  the  ground  in  servile 
wise,  etc.  ?  "^ 

This  scene  resembles  that  in  the  Ion  of  Euripides  (vss.  82  ff.) 
where  Ion  sprinkles  the  pavement  and  adorns  the  portals  of  the 
temple  with  wreaths  and  branches  of  bay : 

irrbpOoiffi  dd(pvris 
aTi(j)ecnv  d'  lepois  e<T65ovs  'Polfiov 
KaOapds  d-qaop-ev  iiypais  re  tt^Bov 
,  pavLaiv  vorepdp,  kt\. 

Apparently  an  altar  stands  just  within  the  vestibule,  and  to  this 
Creusa,  when  Ion  approaches  to  murder  her,  flees  for  refuge."'' 

114  Fahulae  (ed.  Schmidt,  1872,  p.  J37)  "^  De  Esu  Carnium,  II,  998  E. 

ii«  Ti-anslation  of  Hunt,  Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,  VI  (1908),  8.5. 

11^  The  ])()int  is  disputed  ;  but  see  Niejahr,  De  Pollucis  loco  qui  ad  rem  sceniram 
xpectat  (188o),  p.  10,  and  Weissmann,  i)ie  scenische  Auffilhruny  der  yriechischen 
Dramen  des  5.  Jahrhunderts  (1893),  p.  54. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  57 

See  verses  1255  ff.,  1306  and  especially  1314  ff. : 

Ion      eK-XeiTre  jSconbv  Kal  deriXdrovs  ?5pas. 
Cre.    ttju  arjv  oirov  aoi  yUTjrfp'  ecrrt  vovOirei. 
Ion      (TV  S'  ovx  i'0f'|ets  ^ij/xiav,  KTelvova    (jxi; 
Grb.   Tjv  y   evrbs  adiinov  rCovSi  /xe  acpd^ai  0^\rjs. 

Ion 
"Hence!     Leave  the  altar  and  the  hallowed  seat!" 

Cre  us  A 
"Thy  mother  lesson,  wheresoe'er  she  be." 

Ion 
"Shalt  thou  not  suffer,  who  would  murder  me?" 

Crexjsa 
"Yea  —  if  wdthin  this  shrine  thou  dare  to  slay  me."  "'* 

So  in  the  Eumenides  of  Aeschylus  (vss.  64  ff.  ;  p.  75)  it  seems  to 
me  altogether  probable  that  the  omphalos  with  Orestes  clinging 
to  it  is  shown  in  the  portico."^  In  the  opening  scene  of  the  Wasps 
of  Aristophanes  the  two  slaves,  Sosias  and  Xanthias,  are  seen 
sleeping  before  the  door,  probably  in  the  prothyron,  which  appears 
to  be  mentioned  at  verse  875  (c/.  also  vs.  800)  : 

c5  d^criroT   dva^,  yeirov  dymev,  TOVfxov  irpodvpov  vpocpvXaTTwv. 

Aguieus,  lord  and  neighbor,  thou  who  keepest  guard  before  my  pro- 
thyron.^-'> 

A  precisely  similar  scene  occurs  in  the  Clouds,  vss.  1  ff. 

These  are  a  few  of  the  passages  in  the  extant  dramas  of  the 
fifth  century  which  imply  the  use  of  a  portico  as  a  part  of  the 
setting. ^-^  The  manner  in  which  this  prothyron  was  indicated  in 
the  theater  is  a  question  which  must  be  postponed  until  a  later 

118  Translation  of  Way,  slightly  altered. 

119  Blass,  Eumeniden  (1907)  and  the  majority  of  the  earlier  editors  supposed 
that  the  eccyclema  (p.  83)  was  used  here.     This  is  unnecessary.     Von  Wilamo-  . 
witz,  Aeschyli  Tracjoediae  (1!I14)  merely  remarks:  "  valvae  templi  aperiuntur." 

120  So  Blaydes.  irpodvpov  wpocrOirOXas  1',  TrpoTri/Xoi'  TrpoairvXas  V,  irpbcrdev  irpo- 
iri/\ate  Scalinger,   irpodvpov  TrpoirvXaie  Bentley,  etc. 

121  For  other  examples  see  Rees  (note  113).  Legrand  (Daos  (1!)10),  pp.  434  ff.) 
argues  against  the  existence  of  a  vestibule.     He  remarks  (p.  443):  "En  somme, 


58  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

chapter,  but  the  importance  of  the  vestibule  as  a  feature  of  the 
setting  should  not  be  overlooked. 

Another  feature  that  is  given  prominence  in  certain  plays 
is  a  window.  Thus  in  the  Wasps,  vss.  379,  380,  a  window  is  one 
of  the  means  by  which  Philocleon  attempts  to  affect  his  escape 
from  the  house : 

dXX'  i^dipas  5ia  ttjs  dvpldos  to  KaXwdwv  eira  KaOifia 
d'^aas  cravTbt'  Kai  rrjv  \^vx^v  ifiirXyjffdfxevos  Aioireiffovs. 

So  now  to  the  window  lash  the  cord,  and  twine  it  securely  your  limbs 

around. 
With  all  Diopeithes  fill  your  soul,  then  let  yourself  cleverly  down  to  the 

ground. '-- 

The  preparations  are  soon  completed,  but  just  as  the  old  man  is 
about  to  slide  down  the  rope  he  is  discovered  by  his  son,  who 
calls  to  Sosias,  the  slave  (vss.  398-99) : 

dvdpaiv^  dvtjffas  Kara  ttjv  eripav  Kai  Taiffif  (pvWdffi  naie, 
■fjv  TTWS  irpvixv7)v  dvaKpovaTjTai  TrXrjyeis  rais  eipfcriwi'ais. 

With  branch  and  with  bough  up  aloft  instant  go,  at  yon  window  take 

post,  dost  discern,  lad  ? 
With  whip  and  with  scourge  his  course  retrograde  urge,  and  drive  the 

ship  back  to  her  stern,  lad.^-' 

Philocleon,  however,  braves  the  beating  and  slides  at  once  to  the 
ground,  where  he  is  seized  and  hustled  again  into  the  house.     The 

la  localisation  de  scfenes  comiques  dans  les  irpbdvpa  de  quelque  genre  qu'ils 
soient  demeure  tr6s  contestable."  See  also  the  translation  by  Loeb,  The  Neio 
Greek  Comedy  (1917),  p.  354.  But  Legrand  slights  the  evidence  afforded  by 
the  tragedies.  We  should  remember,  however,  that  both  tragedies  and  comedies 
were  performed  in  the  same  theater  and  before  the  same  scene-building. 

122  Translation  of  Rogers. 

123  Translation  of  Cumberland.  The  words  Kara  ttjv  erepav  are  obscure.  Cum- 
berland's translation,  "  at  yon  window,"  follows  the  old  Latin  version  of  Bergler 
(revised  by  Brunck):  "Ascende  in  alteram  fenestram."  Tliis  is  probably  in- 
correct. Van  Leeuwen  undei'stands  the  words  to  refer  to  the  loose  end  of  the 
rope:  "Sosias  per  alteram  funis  extremitaten  se  attollit. "  Von  Wilamowitz 
("Ueber  die  Wespen  des  Aristophanes,"  S.-B.  d.  Berl.  Akad.,  1911,  p.  473) 
remarks:  "  auf  der  einem  von  beiden  Seiten  der  Tliiir,"  i.e.  on  a  curb-stone. 
He  supposes  that  the  window  was  directly  over  the  door.  The  elpeffidivr]  (vs.  399) 
hung  over  the  door  as  a  charm  against  pestilence  and  famine.  It  was  an  olive 
branch  bound  with  wool  and  with  various  autumnal  fruits.  See  Harrison, 
Proleyomena,  pp.  79,  80. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  59 

window,  it  is  clear,  was  at  a  considerable  distance  from  the  ground, 
but  not  necessarily  in  an  upper  story,  as  was  formerly  assumed. 
Some  of  the  houses  uncovered  at  Delos  have  windows  as  low  as 
four  or  five  feet  above  the  level  of  the  road.^-*  Another  comedy  in 
which  a  window,  or  windows,  may  have  been  used  is  the  Eccle- 
siazusae  or  Wo77ieri  in  Council.  Toward  the  end  of  the  play  (vss. 
877  ff.)  an  old  woman  and  a  girl,  both  of  them  courtesans,  carry 
on  a  scurrilous  conversation.      Each  is  peeping  (TrapaKvxpaaa,  vs. 

884  ;     TrapcLKvcfiO'  ojo-irep  yaXrj,  VS.    924  ;     Tt   SiaKwrets,     VS.   930)   OUt   of 

an  opening  on  the  watch  for  a  lover.  But  whether  both  of 
these  openings  were  windows, ^'-^  or  one  was  a  window  (cf.  vs. 
961  :  KaruSpafjiovaa  W/v  6vpav  avoL$ov),  the  other  a  door,  is  not  clear 
from  the  text.     A  window  is  nowhere  specifically  mentioned. 

As  regards  the  height  of  the  scene-building  in  the  fifth  century 
the  evidence  afforded  by  the  extant  dramas  is  fairly  clear.  The 
majority  of  these  require  for  their  adequate  presentation  a  struc- 
ture only  one  story  high ;  for  a  few,  however,  a  second  story  or 
other  similar  superstructure  is  indispensable.  There  is  no  evidence 
for  the  use  of  a  third  story.  ^-^  Certain  late  writers  refer  to  this 
upper  structure  as  the  episkenion,  but  whether  this  term  was 
already  employed  in  the  fifth  century  is  not  known  ^^  and  is  unim- 
portant. Whatever  its  technical  name  may  have  been,  it  is 
referred  to  by  the  comic  poet  Plato,  a  younger  contemporary 
of  Aristophanes,  in  the  line  (Frag.  112,  ed.  Kock.)  :  opare  t6 
Sirjpcs  vTrep<Sov,  "see  (or  "ye  see")  the  upper  story."     In  the  Peace 

124  See  Conve,  "  Foiiilles  a  Delos,"  Bull,  de  corres.  hell..  XIX  (1895),  492, 
498;  Chamonard,  '^Fouillesde  Delos,"  ibid.,  XXX  (1900),  496. 

125  So  van  Leeuwen,  who  further  believes  that  the  neighbor  spies  upon  Blepyrus 
from  a  window  (vss.  327  ff.);  but  this  is  not  certain.  Rogers  believes  that  the 
woman  was  at  a  door  ;  the  girl,  at  a  window. 

126  Indeed,  Greek  theaters,  so  far  as  is  known,  never  exceeded  two  stories  in 
lieight ;  see  Fiechter,  op.  cit.,  p.  3.5.  Bethe's  suggestion  (Proleyumena,  p.  234) 
that  at  Delos  there  were  three  stories  has  not  found  acceptance. 

127  Hesychius,  i-KiaK-qvLov  to  iirl  tt7s  <jK-r]vf)s  KaraycbyLov.  Vitruvius,  VII,  5,  5  : 
eplscaeniwm ;  V,  6,  0  :  epl^caenos.  In  a  Delian  inscription  of  the  year  274  u.c. 
occurs  the  expression  ai  iirduu  <xKt]val ;  see  Homolle,  Bull,  de  corres.  hell.  XVIII 
(1894),  165. 


60  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

(421  B.C.),  as  we  have  already  observed,  the  palace  of  Zeus  rises 
above  the  house  of  Trygaeus,  and  before  its  door  is  a  space  large 
enough  to  accommodate  several  persons  (vss.  525  if.  :  Hermes, 
Trygaeus,  Opora  (Harvest-home)  and  Theoria  (Mayfair),  while 
below  in  the  orchestra  is  the  cave  from  which  the  colossal  statue 
of  Peace  is  drawn  forth  and  from  which  her  attendants  emerge. 
This  solution  of  the  difficulties  involved  in  the  setting  of  this 
unique  play  I  believe  to  be  correct ;  at  any  rate  it  is  vastly  superior 
to  any  other  that  has  ever  been  proposed.'-^  Assuming  its  sub- 
stantial correctness,  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  palace 
of  Zeus  does  not  stand  directly  over  the  house  of  Trygaeus,  but 
is  set  farther  back.  The  roof  of  the  first  story  thus  provides  a 
platform  before  the  door  of  the  story  above.  Although  actually 
the  roof  of  the  house  of  Trygaeus  it  is  imagined  to  be  far  above 
the  clouds,  even  the  summit  of  the  heavenly  Olympus. ^-^  The 
early  portion  of  this  play  is  a  burlesque  of  the  lost  Bellerophon 
of  Euripides,  in  which  Bellerophon  mounted  on  his  winged  steed 
Pegasus  flies  from  earth  to  heaven,  precisely  as  in  the  Peace 
Trygaeus  rises  on  the  back  of  an  enormous  beetle  to  the  abode 
of  the  gods.  It  follows  that  the  setting  for  the  Bellerophon  must 
have  been  very  similar  to  that  employed  in  the  comedy  of  Aris- 
tophanes. Of  like  nature,  too,  are  the  scenic  arrangements  for 
the  Philoctetes  of  Sophocles,  performed  in  the  year  409  b.c'  In 
this  play  the  two  stories  of  the  scene-building  represent  a  steep 
hillside.  But  a  cave  has  replaced  the  door  of  Zeus'  dwelhng, 
the  roof  of  the  first  story  is  supposed  to  be  a  ledge  of  rock,  and  the 
orchestra  represents  the  shore  of  Lemnos.  A  practicable  path- 
way leads  up  from  the  lower  level  to  the  higher. 

These  three  plays,  together  with  that  of  the  comic  poet  Plato, 
to  which  the  fragment  quoted  above  belonged,  were  composed 
and  presented  after  the  year  427  B.C.     But  it  is  possible  to  show, 

128  I  follow  Sharpley,  The  Peace  of  Aristophanes  (1905),  pp.  16  ff.  (See  note  82 
above. ) 

129  Many  scholars  believe  that  the  OeoXoyeiov  was  employed  ;  see  note  133. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  61 

I  believe,  that  as  early  as  440  the  scene-building  may  already  have 
been  two  stories  in  height.  The  play  in  question  is  the  Ajax  of 
Sophocles. ^•■^*'  Odysseus  stealthily  approaches  the  tent  of  Ajax, 
and  is  crouching  before  its  door  (vs.  11  :  Kai  o-'  ovSkv  eiVw  rrjaSe 
TraiTTaLvuv  ttvAt;?)  Scanning  the  ground  for  possible  footprints 
(vs.  5)  when  he  hears  the  voice  of  Athena.  From  this  position 
close  to  the  hut  he  does  not  see  the  goddess  and  exclaims  (vss. 
14,  15) : 

c5  (pdiy/M    Addvas,  ^iXrdnjs  e/xol  OeQv, 
cbs  fu/iiad^s  aov,  kclv  diroTrTos  fjs  B/jlojs, 
(pihvrjfx    aKovoi,  kt\. 

Voice  of  Athena,  dearest  to  me  of  the  gods,  how  clearly,  though  thou 
be  unseen,  do  I  hear  thy  call,  etc. 

Presently  (vss.  71  ff.,  89,  90)  Athena,  bidding  Odysseus  remain 
where  he  is  (vs.  86),  summons  the  maddened  Ajax  to  come  forth ; 
whereat  ^^^th  blood-stained  scourge  in  hand  the  frenzied  warrior 
bursts  from  his  tent  (vs.  301  :  vTra^as  8ia  Ovpwv)  and  rushes 
forwa^'d  into  the  orchestra.  Turning  he  appears  to  see  Athena, 
for  he  exclaims  (vs.  91,  92)  : 

(3  xaip'  ' A6dva,  X'^^P^  Aioyevei  t^kvov, 

Hail  Athena!     Hail  thou  maiden  sprung  from  Zeus,  how  well  hast   thou 
stood  by  me ! 

But  Tecmessa,  who  apparently  follows  him  to  the  door  (see  Jebb's 
note  on  verse  301),  hearing  his  words  but  unable  to  see  the  goddess 
supposes  that  he  is  "ranting  to  some  creature  of  his  brain"  (vss. 

301,   302  :    CTKta  TLVi  Xoyoi;s  avecnra). 

Where  is  Athena  standing  during  these  scenes?  Some  com- 
mentators hold  that  the  goddess  appears  in  the  orchestra  before 
the  tent  of  Ajax.'''^     If,  however,  we  accept  this  interpretation, 

130  Tlie  date  is  not  absolutely  certain,  but  the  play  is  generally  lield  to  be  one 
of  the  earliest  of  the  extant  dramas  of  Sophocles  and  is  usually  assigned  to  about 
the  year  440.  See  Jebb's  edition,  §  41  ;  Schneidewin-Nauck,  Alas,  pp.  63,  64  ; 
von  Wilamowitz,  Neue  Jahrh.f.  d.  klass.  Alterthum,  XXIX  (1912),  450  ff. 

131  So  most  recently  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  291  ;  see  also  Reiscli,  Das  grie- 
chische  Theater,  p.  220.     The  case  of  the  Rhesus  (vss.  595  ff.)  is  different. 


62  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

we  are  virtually  compelled  to  suppose  with  Miiller  that  the  words 
Kav  aTTOTTTos  tJs,  "even  though  thou  be  unseen,"  are  to  be  under- 
stood only  in  a  general  sense  ("als  allgemeine  Bemerkung  zu 
fassen  ist").^^-  But  as  Jebb  remarks  (p.  213),  "it  is  surely  incon- 
ceivable that  if  Odysseus  saw  Athena  standing  near  him,  he  should 
say  to  her  '  How  clearly  I  hear  thy  voice,  even  when  thou  art  unseen. ' 
Such  a  'general  remark'  would  be  too  weak."  It  is  of  course 
possible  that  the  goddess,  though  close  at  hand,  may  be  imagined 
to  remain  invisible,  but  a  more  reasonable  supposition  is  that 
Athena  is  standing  above  on  the  roof,^^^  and  so  cannot  be  seen 
by  Odysseus  who  is  cowering  in  fear  close  to  the  wall,  but  may  be 
visible  to  Ajax  from  his  position  in  the  orchestra.  If  this  be  so, 
the  question  immediately  arises  how  Athena  makes  her  appear- 
ance. Surely  she  does  not  clamber  up  a  ladder  and  emerge 
through  an  opening  in  the  roof,  as  do  Antigone  and  her  aged 
attendant  in  the  Phoenician  Women  of  Euripides  (vss.  88  ff., 
100 :  KiSpov  TTttAaiav  kXlixjxk  eKirepa  ttoSl,  also  103  ff.).  This  were 
unthinkable.  There  remain  then  two  alternatives.  The  first 
is  that  the  goddess  is  swung  into  position  above  the  roof  by 
means  of  the  "machine"  (17  fJLrjxavrj) .  But  there  is  no  known  in- 
stance of  the  use  of  this  device  by  Sophocles,  and  some  scholars 
believe,  in  spite  of  the  Prometheus  Bound,  that  the  machine  did 

132  Biihnenalterthumer,  p.  151,  note  1.  The  old  interpretation  of  Ettowto^  in 
this  passage  :  "  seen  only  at  a  distance,"  "  dimly  seen,"  is  refuted  by  Jebb  (note 
on  vs.  15). 

i'*'  Many  commentators  assume  that  she  appears  on  the  deoXoyeXov,  wliicli  is  sup- 
posed to  be  a  sort  of  platform,  either  stationary  or  movable,  above  the  roof. 
The  word  occurs  only  once,  namely  in  Pollux,  Onomasticon,  IV,  130:  d-n-o  de  rod 
deoXoyeiov,  Sjtws  virep  ttjv  aKrjvrjv,  ev  'v\f/€i  iirKpaivovT ai  6eoi,  uis  6  Zeiis  Kal  oi  irepl  ai~ 
Toc  ff  4'i;xo(TTacri'a  [of  Aeschylus].  What  Pollux  meant  by  this  is  not  certain. 
Flickinger,  op.  cit..  pp.  (iO,  61,  111  (cf.  fig.  24),  following  Dorpfeld.  thinks  that  it 
.should  be  interpretatod  of  the  top  of  the proske.nion  in  the  Graeco-Roman  theater. 
In  any  case  the  almost  universally  adopted  explanation  of  this  term  as  the  naine 
of  a  special  platform  or  the  like  in  the  theater  of  the  fifth  centuiy  is  wholly  with- 
out warrant  and  should  be  abandoned.  Pollux'  citation  of  the  Psychostasia  of 
Aeschylus  is  not  sufficient  to  justify  this  assumption.  Pollux  wrote  his  treatise 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century  a.u.  or  six  hundred  years  after  the  death 
of  Aeschylus  ;  see  Flickinger's  able  discussion  of  the  Onomasticon,  pp.  97  ff. 
Barnett's  discussion  of  the  OeoXoyeiov  (  The  Greek  Drama,  pp.  74,  94)  is  a 
tangle  of  uuintelligibilities. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  63 

not  come  into  use  until  about  the  year  431.^^^  The  other,  and  far 
more  probable,  alternative  is  that  Athena  merely  steps  out  through 
an  opening  in  the  episkenion,  just  as  in  the  Philodetes  Heracles 
enters  through  the  tunneled  cave,^^^  and  as  Zeus,  Thetis  and  Eos  in 
the  lost  Psychostasia  or  The  Weighing  of  the  Souls  of  Aeschylus 
must  have  done,  if  with  Flickinger  and  others  we  deny  Aeschylus 
the  use  of  the  machine.  In  what  other  manner  Zeus  could  have 
made  his  appearance  on  the  roof  or  on  the  theologeion,  whatever 
that  was  (note  133),  is  not  easy  to  imagine.  As  Aeschylus  died 
in  the  year  456  and  the  Psychostasia  certainly  antedated  the 
Oresteia,  which  was  presented  in  458,  this  may  give  us  a  terminus 
ante  quern  for  the  erection  of  a  second  story,  or  at  least  of  some 
form  of  a  superstructure. 

In  the  preceding  paragraphs  mention  has  been  made  of  the 
roof.  This,  as  is  generally  conceded,  was  flat  and  was  utilized 
by  the  dramatists  in  various  ways  and  always  with  a  striking 
enhancement  of  the  scenic  effect.  It  is  here  that  the  watchman 
in  the  Agamemnon  (vss.  1  ff. )  keeps  lonely  vigil,  eager  for  the 
flashing  of  the  beacon  which  will  announce  the  fall  of  Troy ; 
here,  too,  in  the  Wasps  (vss.  1  fT.)  Bdelycleon  Ues  on  guard  and 
sleeps  at  his  post.  On  awakening  (vs.  136)  he  shouts  his  commands 
to  the  slaves  below.  It  is  from  this  vantage-point  that  the  wife 
of  Dicaeopohs  views  the  procession  {Acharnians,  vs.  262) ;  here 
Orestes,  accompanied  by  Py lades  and  the  hapless  Hermione, 
takes  his  stand  and  threatens  to  crush  his  adversary  with  stones 
wrenched  from  the  coping  (Orestes,  vss.  1567  ff.).  At  the  close 
of  the  Clouds  (vss.  1485  ff.)  Strepsiades  orders  Xanthias  to  bring 
ladder  and  mattock  and  to  hack  to  pieces  the  roof  of  the  "Think- 
ing-shop."    He    himself    presently    follows    with    lighted    torch 

134  So  most  recently  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  292.  Decharme  (Euripides  and 
the  Spirit  of  his  Dramas ;  English  translation  by  Loeb,  1906,  p.  263)  assumes 
its  use  in  the  lost  Andromeda  of  Sophocles,  "since  Perseus  returned  flying  from 
the  land  of  the  Gorgons."  But  this  cannot  be  pi'oved  ;  see  l^earson,  Fragments 
of  Sophocles,  I  (1917),  pp.79,  80  ;  Petersen,  Die  attische  Traqodie  als  Bild-  und 
BUhnenkunst  (1915),  pp.  606  ff. 

135  I  agree  with  Woodhouse  (see  note  97,  above)  on  this  point. 


64  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

and  sets  fire  to  the  timbers.  In  the  Phoenician  Women  (vss. 
88  ff.)  Antigone  and  her  aged  attendant  mount  to  the  roof  to  view 
the  Argive  host.^^^  In  the  Philoctetes  of  Sophocles  the  roof  repre- 
sents a  ledge  of  rock  before  the  cave ;  in  the  Lysistrata  of  Aris- 
tophanes, the  top  of  the  wall  of  the  Acropolis :  in  the  Peace,  and 
probably  in  the  Bellerophon,  a  region  above  the  clouds  where 
the  gods  have  their  abodes.  From  these  examples  we  see  how 
richly  the  accession  of  the  scene-building  with  its  flat  roof 
enhanced  the  possibilities  of  dramatic  action,  and  how  freely 
the  playwrights  availed  themselves  of  the  opportunities  thus 
afforded.  137 

In  this  connection,  however,  there  arises  a  somewhat  difficult 
question.  Was  the  roof  of  the  scene-building  entirely  flat,  or 
was  its  central  portion  higher  than  the  two  ends  ?  In  other  words, 
was  there  a  pediment  over  the  central  door?  The  evidence  of 
the  dramas  is  meager  and  with  the  exception  of  one  passage  was 
cited  in  an  earlier  portion  of  this  chapter  (p.  45).  The  passage 
which  remains  for  consideration  occurs  in  the  Orestes  of  Euripides 
(vss.  1369  ff.).  Helen  has  been  murderously  attacked  within 
the  palace  and  her  shrieks  have  scarcely  died  away  when  suddenly 
one  of  her  attendants,  a  Phrygian  eunuch  (vs.  1528),  makes  his 
escape  through  an  opening  near  the  roof  and  leaps  to  the  ground. 
He  is  panic-stricken,  and  well  he  may  be.  For  he  has  been  witness 
of  the  attempted  murder,  he  has  seen  Hermione  seized  and  his 
own  companions  struck  down  or  scattered  in  headlong  flight.     All 

136  Euripides  here  employs  the  expression  ixeXaOptov  di^pes  'iaxarov.,  which  some 
explain  as  meaning  the  roof  of  the  second  story.  But  tliis  is  not  necessary  ;  see 
Pearson's  note  ad  loc,  where,  be  it  observed,  "  hrst  flof)r"  means  "second 
floor  "  in  American  parlance.  Pollux  in  his  definition  of  the  word  dicrreyia  cites 
this  passage.  He  says  (IV,  129):  rj  d^  diaTeyia,  trore  n^v  ev  oLKi^  ^a.(TiKel(f>,  di^pes 
dui/xdrioi',  olop  a.<p  o&  ev  'PoiviaaaLS  r]  Avnyovr]  /SX^Tret  tov  arparov  .  .  .  iv  5e  KWjXi^ 
5ia  dirb  Trjs  diareyias  iropvofioaKoi  rives  KaroTTTevovai,  kt\.  The  word  is  formed 
from  the  adjective  dia-reyos,  "of  two  stories,"  and  means  the  second  story. 
When  applied  to  the  scene-building  it  may  include,  I  believe,  the  roof  of  the  first 
stoiy.  Many  of  the  proffered  elucidations  of  this  term  are  too  fantastic  to  be  of 
value. 

137  poi-  an  illuminating  discussion  of  the  troublesome  word  logeion  see  Flick- 
inger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  .51),  291,  292,  also  80,  97,  98,  etc. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  65 

of  this  he  recounts  with  tense  excitement  in  a  long  lyrical  passage 
which  is  interrupted  only  by  an  occasional  brief  remark  or  query 
of  the  chorus.     It  begins  (vs.  1369)  : 

'Apyetov  ^i(pos  e/c  davdrov  n^cpevya 

^appdpots  ev/j-dptaLV, 

Kidpuird  ira(TTd5ij}p  virep  repa/xva 

AoiplKds  T€  TpiyXvipovs, 

(ppoOda,  (ppovSa,  yd,  yd, 

^ap^dpoLcri.  dpaa/jLoh. 

From  the  death  by  the  Argive  swords  have  I  fled! 

In  my  shoon  barbaric  I  sped ; 
O'er  the  colonnade's  rafters  of  cedar  I  clomb ; 
'Twixt  the  Dorian  triglyphs  I  slid ;   and  I  come 
Fleeing  like  panic-struck  Asian  array  — 

O  Earth,  O  Earth  —  away  and  away."^ 

Pausing  merely  to  note  the  sensational  character  of  this  unusual 
entrance,  which  may  be  compared  with  that  in  the  Eumenides 
(vss.  33  ff.),  where  the  priestess,  stricken  with  terror,  crawls 
on  all  fours  from  the  temple  (rpex^j  St  x^po-tV),  let  us  inquire  pre- 
cisely how  the  Phrygian  accomplished  his  escape.  The  words 
in  the  text  (Trao-raSwv  .  .  .  rpiyXvcfiov^)  strictly  interpreted  mean 
"over  the  beams  of  the  vestibule  and  over  the  Dorian  triglyphs" 
and  seem  to  imply  a  gal^le  roof.  Through  an  opening  in  the  pedi- 
ment the  Phrygian  slips  or  leaps  over  the  frieze  to  the  ground. 
This  is  the  interpretation  favored  by  Reisch  albeit  with  mis- 
givings. ^^^  Others  however,  are  content  with  the  less  accurate 
rendering  :  "over  the  beams  and  between  the  triglyphs."  ^^^  A  third 
group  of  commentators  beheve  that  the  Phrygian  is  describing 
his  escape  from  Helen's  apartments  into  the  inner  court  and  that 
he  makes  his  entrance  before  the  audience  in  the  usual  manner 
through  the  door  of  the  palace.  Support  for  this  view  is  found 
in  three  lines  which  in  the  manuscripts  immediately  precede  the 

138  Translation  of  Way. 

139  Bas  griechische  Theater,  p.  205:  "von  einem  solchen  istwohlim  'Orestes' 
der  Sklave  herabgesprimgen. "     See  also  p.  204,  and  note  145  below. 

1*  So  Decharme,  Euripides  and  the  Spirit  of  his  Dramas;  translated  by  Loeb, 
p.  252  :  "  He  bas  slipped  out  between  tbe  Doric  triglypbs,  or  in  modern  terms, 
has  jumped  out  of  the  window." 


66  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

Phrygian's  appearance  (vss.  1366-68).''"  The  leader  of  the  chorus 
remarks : 

dXXd  KTVTrei  yap  K\TJ6pa  ^affiXiKdv  86fiuv, 
ffiyrfffaT    ■   e^w  yap  tis  fKfiaivn  'i>pvyu>v, 
ov  TTiVCFOjxecrda  rdv  66/xois  ottcos  e'xf'- 

But  lo,  the  bars  clash  of  the  royal  halls ! 

Hush  ye :  —  there  comes  forth  of  her  Phrygians  one 

Of  whom  we  shall  learn  what  befell  within.^'^ 

The  majority  of  editors,  however,  justly  hold  these  verses  to  be 
spurious,  as  did  one  of  the  ancient  commentators,  who  declared 
them  to  be  an  interpolation  inserted  by  the  actors.  These,  he 
says,  preferred  to  make  their  entrance  through  the  door  lest  in 
leaping  from  above  they  should  suffer  injury. ^'^^ 

But  whichever  interpretation  be  adopted,  it  is  clear,  I  think, 
that  the  evidence  of  these  three  dramas,  the  HypsipTjle,  the  Ion, 
and  the  Orestes,  is  too  meager  and  uncertain  to  warrant  a  con- 
clusive judgment.  There  appears,  however,  to  l3e  no  good  reason 
for  denying  at  least  the  occasional  erection  of  a  small  gable  roof 
to  meet  the  playwright's  needs.  Dorpfcld,  reljdng  in  part  upon 
these  passages,  in  part  upon  the  supposed  evidence  of  the  late 
vase-paintings  mentioned  above  (p.  55),  reconstructed  the 
scene-building  of  the  fifth  century  with  a  gable  over  the  central 
portion  (Fig.  23,  p.  95,  below).  He  finds  additional  support 
for  this  reconstruction  in  the  presence  of  certain  holes  (Diibel- 
locher)  above  the  cornice  of  the  proskenion  at  Priene,  which  he 

i'*!  Compare  also  a  scholium  found  iu  the  Codex  Guelferbytanus :  &\\ov  /x^v 
oiKTjfiaTos  inr€pTr7]drjaas  to.  ffreyr],  ec  aXXoj  oe  eXdwv  Kai  rjacpaKLfffxh'as  evpwv  ras 
TOVTOJV  TTvXas,  TO.  TOVTOJV  KXeWpa  avvrpiipas  e^rjXdei'. 

142  Translation  of  Way. 

143  rovTovs  Toxjs  Tpeis  ctlxovs  ovk  S.v  tls  i^  fToi/xov  ffvyx'^PVffeLei'  Ei'piTr/Soi;  eivai, 
dXXa  /xaXXoi'  tQv  viroKpirCiv,  oiTives,  iva  p.ri  KaKOiraOibcnv  diro  tQv  jSacnXfiwv  dd/niov 
KaOaWofievoi,  irapai'ol^ai'Tes  eKvopevovrai^  kt\. 

The  apparent  stupidity  of  the  reason  assigned  for  the  interpolation  may  per- 
haps he  explained  away  by  supposing  that  in  the  late  Hellenistic  or  Graeco- 
Eoman  theater  the  distance  from  pediment  to  ground  was  greater  than  in  the 
tune  of  Euripides.  Furthermore  iu  late  times  tlie  scene-building  was  of  stone 
and  perhaps  afforded  no  convenient  opening  through  a  pediment  for  the  escape 
of  the  slave. 


THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    DRAMAS  67 

supposes  may  have  served  to  hold  such  a  pediment  in  place. ^'*^ 
But  this  explanation  is  by  many  held  to  be  unsound,  while  his 
restoration  of  the  scene-building  at  Athens  has  met  with  but 
little  favor. 

As  regards  the  architectural  and  other  adornment  of  the  scene- 
building,  Aeschylus  and  Sophocles  are  silent,  while  Aristophanes 
is  provokingly  chary  of  information.  It  is  to  Euripides  alone 
that  we  must  turn  for  enlightenment,  but  his  descriptions,  as  of 
the  sculptures  in  the  Ion  (p.  44),  are  sometimes  so  lavish  as  to 
arouse  suspicion.  His  frequent  references  however,  to  columns 
{Iphigenia  among  the  Taurians,  vs.  128,  Ion,  vs.  185,  Bacchae,  vs. 
591,  The  Mad  Heracles,  vs.  1038) ;  the  triglyph-frieze  (Orestes,  vs. 
1372,  Iphigenia  among  the  Taurians,  vs.  113,^^^  Bacchae,  vs.  1214)  ; 
andthe  cornice  (Iphigenia  among  the  Taurians,  vs.  129,  Ion,  vss. 
156,  172,  Orestes,  vss.  1569,  1570,  1620)  possess  a  verisimiUtude 
that  challenges  belief.  And  that  color  also  was  used  in  the 
adornment  of  the  scene-building  in  conformity  with  the  prevaiUng 
taste  is  not  to  be  doubted.  A  hint  of  this  is  found  in  the  Iphigenia 
among  the  Taurians,  vs.  128,  where  the  chorus  speak  of  "the  gilded 
cornice  of  thy  pillared  temple,"  and  in  the  Ion,  vss.  156,  157, 
where  the  shrine  is  spoken  of  as  golden.  One  is  reminded  that 
as  early  as  about  the  year  460,  while  Aeschylus  was  still  producing 
plays,  the  artist  Agatharchus  had  been  employed  to  paint  the 
Skene  (note  178,  p.  82) ;   while  inscriptions  of  the  third  century 

i«  Jahrb.  d.  arch.  Inst.  XVI  (1901),  32  ;  ibid.,  Anzeiger,  XXVin  (1913),  40. 
This  iuterpretatiou  is  .scornfully  rejected  by  Fiechter  (op.  cit,  pp.  32,  33,  Anm.  3). 

14=  6pa  8^  y'  daw  TpiyXixpwv  6iroi  Kevbv  \  d^/xas  Kade?vai,  "Ah,  see  ;  far  up,  between 
each  pair  of  beams  |  A  hollow  one  might  creep  through  "  (Murray's  translation). 
This  is  the  traditional  interpretation,  but  both  text  and  interpretation  are  in 
doubt.  Tpty\v(puv  I  think,  meaiLS  here  the  triglyph-frieze,  as  it  does  also  in 
Bacchae,  vs.  1214. 

My  colleague,  Professor  O.  M.  Washburn,  believes  that  eicno  here  means 
"  within  "  in  the  sense  of  "  beyond  "  or  "  behind,"  i.e.,  behind  the  frieze  is  an 
opening  in  the  ceiling  of  the  vestibule,  by  means  of  which  one  may  make  his 
way  to  the  attic  and  so  let  himself  down  into  the  cella.  See  his  paper 
"  Iphigenia  Taurica  113  as  a  Document  in  the  History  of  Architecture,"  Amer. 
Jour.  Arch.  XXII  (1918),  434 ff.;  also  "The  Origin  of  the  Triglyph  Frieze," 
ibid.,  XXIU  (1919),  33  ff. 


68  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

pertaining  to  the  theater  at  Delos  more  than  once  mention  the 
use  of  painting  (note  26,  p.  15). 

At  this  point  we  may  conclude  this  portion  of  our  survey  of 
the  dramas.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  cite  every  passage 
bearing  upon  the  character  of  the  scene-building  and  of  the  set- 
tings that  were  in  use ;  and  in  the  nature  of  the  case  what  evi- 
dence there  is,  is  fragmentary  and  much  of  it  negative,  or  at 
least  inconclusive.  That  which  seems  to  possess  a  positive  signi- 
ficance needs  to  be  supplemented  by  a  study  of  the  changes  of 
scene  or  locality  in  Greek  dramas,  particularly  of  those  which  may 
contribute  to  our  understanding  of  the  scene-building.  To  this 
subject  we  may  now  address  ourselves. 


CHANGES   OF   THE   SETTING  ^^e 

That  the  Greek  playwright  did  not  regard  unity  of  time  and 
unity  of  place  as  coercive  principles  of  dramatic  technique  has 
long  been  recognized.  He  observed  them  rather  merely  as  natural 
and  prevailing,  albeit  violable,  traditions  of  his  art.  They  were 
not  submitted  to  as  a  strait-jacket  of  convention  arbitrarily  pre- 
scribed by  an  inscrutable  authority ;  but  they  were  accepted 
as  an  appropriate  and  dignified  vesture  to  be  worn  with  an  easy 
grace  or  laid  aside  at  will.  And  had  Castelvetro  and  Sidney  and 
Boileau  been  more  observant  of  the  facts,  it  is  scarcely  conceivable 
that  the  bastard  ''unities"  would  ever  have  been  fathered  upon 
Aristotle  or  erected  into  a  dogma  of  dramatic  art.^*^ 

For  the  facts  are  that  in  Greek  drama  there  occur  with  con- 
spicuous frequency  not  only  changes  of  scene  or  locality,  but 
intervals  of  time  as  well.  From  the  point  of  view  of  technique 
both  are  pertinent.  Neglect  of  either  would  be  a  serious  over- 
sight.    But  in  a  study  of  scenic  arrangement  disunity  of  time  is 

i''6  Selected  bibliography : 

Miiller,  Griechische  Bilhnenalterthumer  (1886).     See  note  79. 

von   Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,    "Die   Biihne   des   Aiscliylos,"    Hermes,   XXI 

(1886),  597  ff. 
Dorpfeld  nnd  Reisch,  Das  griechische  Theater  (1896). 
Haigh,  The  Attic  Theatre  (see  note  11). 
FeLsch.    Quibus  Artificiis  Adhibitis   Poetae   Tragici  Graeci    Unitates  Bias  et 

Temporis  et  Loci  Observaverint  (1906). 
Schiibl,   Die  Landschaft  auf  der  Buhne  des   5,   vorchristlichen  Jahrhunderts 

(1912). 
J'en.sterbiLsch,  Die  Bnhrie  des  Aristophanes  (1912). 
Flickinger,  The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1918). 
For  other  references  see  the  following  footnotes. 

147  For  an  admirable  discussion  of  this  subject  see  Butcher,  Aristotle's  Theory 
of  Poetry  and  Fine  Art,  chap.  7. 

69 


70  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

of  slight  importance  and  may  safely  be  omitted. ^^^  Not  so,  how- 
ever, changes  of  place.  These  are  of  vital  moment  and  demand 
a  detailed  examination. 

Changes  of  scene  or  locality  occur  both  within  plays  and  between 
them,  and  in  both  situations  are  equally  instructive.  Those 
which  fall  wuthin  the  plays  ^^^  rarely  involve  a  modification  of  the 
setting.  The  greater  number  are  facilitated  by  the  use  of  a 
multiple  set,  or  else  depend  merely  upon  the  suggestiveness  of 
word  and  action  and  the  visualizing  power  of  the  imagination, 
which  schools  both  the  poet's  pen  and  the  apprehending  mind 
to  give 

to  airy  nothing 
A  local  habitation  and  a  name. 

An  excellent  example  of  the  last  genre  is  found  in  the  Frogs  of 
Aristophanes.  ~ 

At  the  opening  of  the  play  the  orchestra  represents  the  road 
and  an  open  space  before  the  house  of  Heracles.  Suddenly 
Charon,  grim  ferryman  of  the  dead,  appears  rowing  his  tiny  boat, 
and  in  a  twinkling  the  orchestra  becomes  a  la,ke.  The  presence  of 
the  boat  and  Dionysus'  exclamation  "Why,  that's  the  lake,  by 
Zeus!"  (Xifivr)  VT]  Aia  avTT]  '(ttiv  (vs.  181))  are  alone  sufficient  to 
whisk  the  imagination  of  the  audience  to  the  Acherusian  shores. 
With  the  disappearance  of  Charon  and  his  boat  the  lake  is  for- 
gotten, and  the  orchestra  becomes  in  turn  the  regions  of  the  dead, 
dark  and  loathsome.  Horrid  specters  hover  in  the  air,  while  in 
the  deep  mire  flounder 

such  as  have  wronged  a  guest, 
-     Or  picked  a  wench's  pocket  while  they  kissed  her, 
Beaten  their  mother,  smacked  their  fathers'  jaws, 
Or  sworn  perjurious  oaths  before  high  heaven.'^" 

1*8  On  this  subject  see  Croiset,  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Grecque,  HI  (1899), 
131,  132;  Kent,  "The  Time  Element  in  the  Greek  Drama,"  Trans.  Am.  Phil. 
Assoc.  XXXVII  (1906),  39  ff.  ;  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  246  ff. 

149  j'or  changes  of  scene  between  plays  see  p.  76. 

"•i  Vss.  146  ff. ;  translation  of  Murray. 


CHANGES   OF   THE    SETTING  71 

Again  the  poet  waves  his  wand,  and  darkness  and  mud  give  place 
to  Ught  most  beautiful,  and  verdant  meadows  and  groves  of  glossy 
myrtle,  where  the  blessed  "initiates"  dance  and  sing  in  joyous 
revelry.  Another  shift,  and  Dionysus  and  his  slave  stand  at 
the  portals  of  Pluto's  dwelling. 

A  similar,  but  less  extensive,  series  is  found  in  the  Acharnians 
of  xVristophanes.  The  building  which  has  represented  the  city 
residence  of  Dicaeopolis  suddenly  is  imagined  to  be  his  country 
house,  and  the  orchestra,  which  has  represented  the  Pnyx,  be- 
comes Dicaeopolis'  farm.  Words  and  actions  alone  indicate  the 
imagined  change  (cf.  v.  202  :  a^w  to.  Kar  dypovs  eio-iwv  Aiovvo-ta).^^^ 
Later,  though  with  less  abruptness,  Athens  again  becomes  the 
scene  of  action,  and  Pn^-x  and  farm  give  way  to  market  place. 
Other  examples  of  this  type  of  change  are  easily  found,  espe- 
cially in  comedy.  Their  significance  lies  in  the  vividness  with 
which  they  illumine  for  us  the  primitive  simpHcity  of  the  early 
scenic  arrangements. 

Instructive,  too,  in  this  regard  is  the  use  of  the  multiple  set. 
Thus  in  the  play  last  mentioned,  the  background  represents 
the  houses  of  Dicaeopolis,  Euripides  and  Lamachus,  while  before 
them  in  the  orchestra  are  placed  benches  and  other  properties  to 
indicate  the  Pnyx.^^^  At  the  opening  of  the  comedy  DicaeopoHs, 
weary  of  the  war  ^ith  Sparta,  appears  alone  in  the  place  of  assem- 
bly. It  is  early  morning  {iwOivrj^,  vs.  20)  and  he  awaits  with 
unconcealed  impatience  the  coming  of  the  Prytanes  and  the 
rabble.  Finally  after  the  lapse  of  several  hours  (/xecn^/A^pivot, 
vs.  40)  these  rush  in  pell-mell,  the  benches  and  the  surrounding 
space  are  filled,  and  the  assembly  is  called  to  order.  The  war 
party  holds  the  whip  hand  and  will  brook  no  interference  with 

151  See  Starkie's  excellent  comments,  ed.  Acharnians,  pp.  24.5  ff.  Quite  gra- 
tuitous is  van  Leeuwen's  suggestion  {Acharnenses,  1901,  p.  3)  that  Dicaeopolis 
celebrates  the  rural  Dionysia  in  the  town  (in  ipsa  urbe  celebrare  parva  Libe- 
ralia  .  .  .  figentem  se  rure  versari) . 

1"  Fensterbusch,  up.  cit.,  pp.  11  ff.,  believes  that  there  was  a  stage  (cf.  pp. 
1  ff.).     He  concedes,  however,  that  the  Pnyx  was  in  the  orchestra. 


72  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

its  plans,  until  at  length  Dicaeopolis,  exasperated  and  disgusted, 
has  a  happy  inspiration.  "A  drop  of  rain  has  struck  me!"  he 
exclaims,  and  the  meeting  is  immediately  and  unceremoniously 
adjourned  (vs.  173).  At  verse  202,  announcing  that  he  "will 
go  within  (eio-twv)  ^^^  and  celebrate  the  rural  feast  of  Dionysus," 
Dicaeopolis  enters  his  house,  which,  as  we  saw  above,  is 
now  imagined  to  be  his  country  residence.  Throughout  the 
remainder  of  the  play  the  benches  and  the  bema  of  the  Pnyx, 
though  still  included  in  the  physical  setting,  are  treated  by  both 
poet  and  audience  as  if  they  were  non-existent.  In  similar  manner, 
during  the  scene  in  the  Pnyx,  the  house  from  which  Dicaeopolis 
made  his  appearance  is  for  the  time  being  ignored,  and  the  action 
is  thought  of  as  occurring  not  only  not  before  the  building,  but 
not  even  in  its  immediate  neighborhood.  At  the  conclusion 
of  the  scene  Dicaeopolis'  remark,  ''I  shall  go  within,"  and  his 
accompanying  action  restore  the  house  once  more  to  a  prominent 
place  in  the  setting.  ^^^ 

In  the  Libation-bearers  of  Aeschylus  occurs  another  example 
of  this  type.  The  background  represents  the  castle  of  Clytaem- 
nestra  and  Aegisthus  ;  in  incongruous  proximity  stands  the  tomb 
of  the  murdered  Agamemnon.  During  the  long  scene  at  the 
tomb  the  presence  of  the  castle  is  all  but  forgotten.  But  it  is 
not  quite  forgotten,  as  the  words  of  Orestes,  ryvSe  /xkv  o-Tei'xetv  eo-w 
(vs.  552),  "She  (i.e.    Electra)  must  go  within, "  clearly  show. ^^^ 

153 1  do  not  agree  with  Droysen  ( Quaestiones  de  Aristophanis  re  scaenica, 
1868,  p.  10),  Starkie  (notes  ad  loc.  and  also  on  Wasps,  vs.  107),  and  others  that 
elffiwv  means  "  domum  (i.e.  rus)  ibo."  See  van  Leeuwen's  note  on  Vespae, 
vs.  107. 

154  So  in  the  Frogs,  during  the  central  scenes  the  building  which  represents 
the  house  of  Heracles  is,  as  it  were,  forgotten.  In  the  later  portions  of  the 
play  the  same  house,  as  1  believe,  does  duty  as  the  palace  of  Pluto.  It  is  unnec- 
essaiy  to  assume,  with  some  scholars,  the  existence  of  two  houses  side  by  side- 
.still  less  the  use  of  screens  or  hangings  to  conceal  the  building  during  the  inter, 
vening  scenes. 

155  Verrall  (ed.  Choephori,  189.3)  mistranslates:  "  My  sister  here  must  go 
home,"  but  he  favors  at  least  "two  changes  of  the  decoration"  (Introd.  p. 
xxxi).  Tucker  also  (Choephori,  1901,  p.  xli)  and  Blass  (Choephoren,  1906, 
p.  20)  believe  that  during  the  scene  at  the  tomb  the  palace  was  in  some  manner 
concealed  from  view.     But  the  word  ecrw  with  such  verbs  as  (Treixei-f,  Ko/xl^effdai, 


CHANGES   OF   THE    SETTING  73 

This  remark,  like  Dicaeopolis'  announcement  in  the  Acharnians 
(vs.  202),  indicates  that  the  house,  though  far  distant  in  imagina- 
tion, is  actually  visible  and  near  at  hand.  By  so  ingenuous  a 
hint  is  the  way  prepared  for  the  ensuing  change  of  scene.  And 
that,  even  after  the  action  has  shifted  to  the  castle  (vss.  649  ff.), 
the  tomb  still  remains  visible  in  the  orchestra  is  shown  beyond  a 
peradventure  by  the  invocation  of  the  chorus,  "0  Sovereign 
Earth,  and  thou  august  mound  that  liest  now  upon  the  body  of 
our  king  and  admiral,  now  hearken;  now  send  aid!"^^^  To 
remove  so  heavy  a  piece  of  stage-furniture  before  or  during  the 
choral  ode  (vss.  583  ff.)  would  occasion  an  awkward  interruption, 
and  thus  seriously  mar  the  artistic  effect  of  the  drama.  The  poet 
chooses  therefore  to  leave  the  setting  undisturbed  until  the  end. 
If  the  principle  suggested  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  para- 
graph be  sound,  it  should  of  course  be  applicable  in  all  cases.  But 
on  this  point  we  must  plead  ignorance.  The  most  that  can  be 
said  is  that  the  only  universally  acknowledged  instances  of  a  change 
of  the  setting  occur  during  the  temporary  absence  of  both  chorus 
and  actors.  At  first  blush  this  striking  synchronism  of  deserted 
"stage"  with  alteration  of  the  set  appears  to  be  decisive. ^^'''  The 
inference  is  tempting  that  under  other  conditions  no  interruption 
of  the  action,  whether  occasioned  by  the  changing  of  structural 
background  or  the  moving  of  heavy  properties  or  the  alleged 
shifting  of  painted  hangings  and  screens,  was  countenanced.     But 

etc.,  like  the  English  "go  within, "  surely  indicates  the  presence  of  the  house. 
Compare  Cho.,  vs.  949,  Agam.,  vs.  1035,  Oed.  Tyr.,  vs.  92,  Ant.,  vs.  578,  Plut., 
vs.  231,  EccL,  vss.  510,  511,  etc.  Von  Wilamowitz  (Aeschyli  TragOediae,  1914, 
p.  247)  says  :  "  regia  usque  ad  v.  554  ignoratur,  ignoranda  etiam  spectatoribus.  ■" 
See  also  Felsch,  op.  cit.,  p.  13. 

1^6  Vss.  723  ff.  :  tS  TthrvLa  x^'^^  «<'■"'■  ttStvl''  d/crTj  |  x'^l^"-'^'^^^  V  ''^''i  ^'^^^  It  should 
be  noted  that  the  chorus  is  in  the  orchestra  and  presumably  near  the  tomb. 
Tucker  (see  the  preceding  note)  overlooks  the  signihcance  of  this  passage.  He 
writes  (p.  xli)  :  "  I  should  prefer  to  suppose  that  the  tomb  was  actually 
removed,"  etc.  Blass  {up.  cit.,  p.  20)  dissents.  See  also  Niejahr,  Progr.  des 
Gijmn.  zu  Greifswald  (1885),  pp.  xiii,  xiv. 

'■''7  Compare  Midler,  op.  cit.,  p.  102  :  "Es  ist  selbstverstandlich,  dass  nicht  nur 
die  Schauspieler  die  Biihne,  sondern  audi  der  Chor  die  Orchestra  beim  Eiu- 
ti'eten  einer  Scenenverwandlung  verlassen  haben  musste. "     See  also  p.  161. 


74  THE   GREEK   THEATER 

unfortunately  this  cannot  be  established.  An  attempted  proof 
would  issue  only  in  a  petitio  principii. 

Of  the  changes  of  locality  which  involve  a  modification  of 
the  setting  the  most  conspicuous  instance  occurring  within  the 
plays  is  found  in  the  Eumenides  of  Aeschylus.  This  happens  to 
be  also  the  earliest  example  known.  The  backgromid  represents 
at  first  the  temple  of  Apollo  at  Delphi.  In  an  impressive  scene 
Apollo  bids  Orestes  quit  his  shrine  and  go  to  Athens  and  there 
before  a  court  instituted  by  Athena  seek  exculpation  from  the 
charge  of  murder.  Shortly  after  his  departure  the  Furies,  who 
constitute  the  chorus  of  the  play,  set  out  in  hot  pursuit.  Apollo 
retires  into  the  temple,  and  the  "stage"  is  deserted.  This  occurs 
at  verse  234.  The  next  verse  reads:  "Queen  Athena,  at  the 
behests  of  Loxias  am  I  come,"  and  is  spoken  by  Orestes  as  he 
sinks,  weary  and  travel-stained,  at  the  feet  of  the  statue  of  the 
goddess,  while  the  Furies  reenter  tracking  like  hounds  upon  the 
scent  the  blood-dyed  footprints  of  their  intended  victim.  Thence- 
forth Athens  is  the  scene  of  the  action.  It  is  evident  then  that 
during  the  absence  of  chorus  and  actors  the  setting  has  been 
modified.  But  how  simple  the  change !  A  statue  of  Athena 
has  been  substituted  for  the  symbols  of  Apollo,  and  possibly 
benches  and  other  properties  introduced  for  use  in  the  court 
scene  which  is  to  follow  (vss.  566  ff.).^^* 

Equally  simple  is  the  readjustment  of  the  setting  in  the  Ajax 

of  Sophocles.    During  the  first  half  of  the  play  the  scene  represents 

the  hut  or  tent  of  Ajax  in  the  Greek  encampment  on  the  coast 

of  the  Troad.     At  verse  692,  announcing  that  he  "will  seek  out 

158  Like  the  benches  of  the  Pnyx  in  the  Acharnians  these  may,  however,  have 
been  put  in  place  before  the  opening  of  the  play.  Their  introduction  during  the 
ode  which  precedes  the  court  scene  (vss.  490-565)  seems  to  me  improbable 
(p.  73).  But  von  Wilamowitz  does  not  share  this  viev;.  He  says  {Aeschyli 
Tragoediae,  1914,  p.  310)  :  "  Dum  chorus  saltat,  in  fronte  scaenae  sellae  ponun- 
tur,  ceteraque  quibus  in  judicio  opus  est  apparantur."  So  Blass  (Eumeiiiden, 
1907,  p.  135)  :  "Die  naclifolgende  Gerichtsscene  kann  ich  mir  nur  auf  dem 
Areopage  denken  .  .  .  also  war  wahrend  des  vorangehenden  Stasimons  wieder 
eine  kleine  Scenenverwandlung  vorgenommen."  But  the  scene  of  the  trial  was 
not  certainly  the  Areopagus;  see  Ridii-eway.  "The  True  Scene  of  the  Second 
Act  of  the  Eumenides,"  Class.  Eev.  XXI  (1907),  163-68. 


CHANGES   OF   THE    SETTING  75 

some  untrodden  spot"  and  there  bury  his  sword,  "hatefullest 
of  weapons,"  as  token  of  submission  to  the  gods,  Ajax  departs. 
But  his  ambiguous  words  and  a  message  from  Teucer  affright 
Tecmessa,  and  she  and  the  chorus  hasten  forth  (vs.  814),  "some 
to  the  westward  bays,  some  toward  the  eastward,"  to  "seek  the 
man's  ill-omened  steps."  At  this  point  the  scene  is  changed  and 
becomes  a  lonely  wooded  glen  (cf.  x^P^^  do-Tt/3^,  vs.  657  ;  vd-n-ovs, 
vs.  892),  to  whose  sheltering  depths  the  despairing  Ajax  makes 
his  way  and  there  falls  upon  his  sword,  burying  it  indeed,  as  he 
truly  said,  but  —  in  his  own  heart !  Here  also,  as  in  the  Eumen- 
ides,  the  rearrangement  of  the  setting  was  effected  during  the  ab- 
sence of  both  chorus  and  actors,  but  precisely  how  it  was  ac- 
comphshed  is  not  known. '^^ 

These  two  instances  are  generally  referred  to  as  the  only  ex- 
amples in  Greek  drama  of  a  change  of  the  setting  during  the  prog- 
ress of  a  play.'®''  But  by  rights  at  least  one  other  should  be  in- 
eluded.  This  occurs  between  verses  63  and  64  of  the  Eumenides. 
The  aged  priestess,  terror-stricken  at  what  she  has  beheld  within 
the  temple,  totters  from  the  scene.  The  "stage"  is  deserted  and 
there  ensues  a  brief  pause  in  the  action.  Then  suddenly  the  in- 
terior of  the  temjjle  is  disclosed  and  there  are  discovered  Orestes 
clinging  to  the  omphalos  and  Apollo,  his  protector,  standing  near 

159  Some  suppose  that  the  trees  and  shubbery,  which  represent  the  woodland, 
were  put  in  place  before  the  beginning  of  the  play  ;  so,  for  example,  Schiibl, 
op.  cit.  Others,  e.g.,  Bolle,  Die  BUhne  des  Sophokles  (1902),  p.  11,  hold  that 
the  setting  for  the  woodland  scene  was  not  arranged  until  after  vs.  814. 

Equally  divergent  tou  are  the  views  regarding  the  removal  of  the  tent. 
Piderit  {Szenische  Analyze  des  Sophukles  SiUcke.'i  Alas,  18-50)  supposes  that 
there  was  no  change  whatever.  Bethe  (Prolegomena,  1890,  pp.  12.5  ff.)  rehes 
upon  the  eccyclema.  Reisch  (op.  cit.,  p.  212)  suggests  that  the  front  wall  of  the 
tent  was  drawn  aside  to  right  and  to  left,  thus  disclosing  the  set  for  the  wood- 
land glen,  which  had  been  previously  arranged  behind  the  scenes.  Flickinger 
(op.  cit.,  p.  244),  supposes  "that  one  of  the  side  doors  in  the  front  of  the 
scene-building  was  left  open  to  represent  the  entrance  to  the  glen,  and  that 
around  and  beliind  it  were  set  panels  pauited  to  suggest  the  woodland  coast  and 
gleu."    Alia  alii. 

160  Flickinger  (op.  cit.,  pp.  235,  250)  thinlcs  that  he  detects  also  in  the  Alcestis 
(vss.  747-860)  "  a  slight  change  of  scene"  (=  setting?).  But  he  admits  that 
the  evidence  is  not  clear.  Petersen  (op.  cit.,  p.  561),  cites  this  passage  as  evi- 
dence for  the  use  of  uppei-,  as  well  as  lower,  parodi  —  an  interpretation  that  will 
meet  with  little  favor.     See  my  review  in  Class.  Phil.  XIII  (1918),  216  ff. 


76  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

at  hand  with  Hermes ;  wliile  about  them  in  a  gi'oup  are  seen  the 
dark  and  hideous  forms  of  the  sleeping  Furies.  The  way  in  which 
this  disclosure  was  effected  is  not  certain.  Indeed,  the  explana- 
tions that  have  been  offered  are  legion. '^^  But  whatever  the  manner 
of  its  accomplishment,  it  constitutes,  in  my  opinion,  a  genuine 
instance  of  a  change  of  the  setting.  The  new  set  continues  in 
use  until  verse  234.^^2 

Be  this  as  it  may,  the  evidence  of  the  dramas  seems  to  show 
that  only  on  rare  occasions  did  a  change  of  scene  within  a  play 
involve  a  modification  of  the  setting.  But  between  plays  this 
must  have  been  of  frequent  occurrence.  For  in  the  fifth  century, 
at  the  greater  Dionysia  at  least,  there  appear  to  have  been  regu- 
larly three  series  of  dramatic  performances,  each  series  consisting 
of  five  plays  and  each  constituting  the  program  of  a  single  day. 
True,  the  evidence  is  somewhat  hazy,  but  this  is  to-day  the  pre- 
vailing interpretation.  In  other  words,  it  is  generally  believed 
that  on  each  of  three  successive  days  there  were  presented  in 
rapid  succession  five  dramas,  and  that  each  of  these  series  was 
composed  regularly  of  three  tragedies,  a  satyr-play  and  a  comedy. ^^^ 

161  Many  scholars,  following  the  scholiast,  assume  the  use  of  the  eccyclema 
(p.  83)  ;  so  most  recently  Flickinger  (op.  cit.,  pp.  286,  287).  Others  dissent 
(for  example,  Neckel,  Das  Ekkyklema,  1890,  pp.  12,  13  ;  Reisch,  I)as  griech. 
Theater,  1896,  p.  244  ;  Rees,  "The  Function  of  the  Ilpdevpov  in  the  Production 
of  Greek  Plays,"  Class.  Phil.  X  (1915),  130.) 

In  my  judgment  any  explanation  that  involves  the  assumption  that  the  Furies 
are  not  seen,  be  it  ever  so  dimly,  until  after  the  departure  of  Orestes  (vs.  93)  or 
the  disappearance  (vs.  139)  of  the  ghost  of  Clytaemnestra  (e.g.  G.  Hermann, 
Opusc.  VI,  pt.  2,  p.  163  ;  Neckel,  op.  clt.,  p.  12  ;  Reisch,  op.  cit,  p.  243  ;  Fhck- 
inger,  op.  cit.,  p.  287)  is  dramatically  unsound.  Niejahr  (De  Pollucis  Loco  qui 
ad  Rem  Scenicam  Spectat  (1885,  p.  5)  states  clearly  the  reasons  for  this  view. 

162  See  the  preceding  note  (second  paragraph) .  For  somewhat  similar,  though 
less  striking,  discoveries  see  the  Ajax  of  Sophocles,  vs.  346,  where  Ajax  is 
shown  within  his  tent ;  and  The  Mad  Heracles  of  Euripides,  vs.  1029,  where 
Heracles  is  seen  within  his  house  with  the  dead  bodies  of  his  wife  and  children 
at  his  feet.  In  these,  and  in  other  instances,  many  scholars  assume  that  the 
eccyclema  (p.  83)  was  used.  But  this  is  very  doubtful  ;  see  Neckel,  Das 
Ekkyklema  (1890),  and  Rees,  "  The  Function  of  the  npddvpov,''  etc.,  Class. 
Phil.  X  (1915),  129  ff. 

163  The  three  tragedies  and  the  satyr-play  were  together  known  technically  as 
a  didascalia  (teaching,  presentation),  and  were  regularly  the  work  of  a  single 
poet. 

That  a  comedy  was  presented  on  the  same  day  as  the  didascalia  has  some- 


CHANGES   OF   THE    SETTING  77 

Even  those  who  dissent  from  this  view  are  unanimous  in  aclcnowl- 
edging  that  the  tragedies  and  the  satyric  drama  constituted  a 
single  group.  So  far  as  concerns  scenic  arrangements  the  point 
is  not  of  vital  importance.  For  it  is  clear  that  whether  the  series 
consisted  of  four  plays  or  of  five,  one  and  the  same  set  cannot 
have  been  employed  throughout.  The  scene  of  the  satyr-plays 
was  often,  if  not  indeed  regularly,  a  country  region  with  trees, 
rocks  and  the  like,  and  frequently  a  cave.  Comedy  chose  a 
variety  of  settings,  while  even  in  tragedy  the  usual  background 
of  house  or  temple  was  not  uniformly  employed  (p.  49). 

Unfortunately  no  single  series  has  been  preserved  entire,  not 
even  a  didascalia.  The  nearest  approach  to  such  a  series  is 
found  in  the  Orestean  trilogy  of  Aeschylus  consisting  of  the 
Agamemnon,  the  Libation-bearers  and  the  Eumenides,  and  requir- 
ing as  settings  respectively  a  palace,  a  palace  and  tomb,  a  temple. 
But  that  the  scenic  requirements  were  not  always  so  simple  and 
uniform  is  shown  beyond  a  doubt  by  the  group  of  dramas  pre- 
sented by  Euripides  in  the  year  431.  This  was  composed,  as 
the  hypothesis  (argument)  to  the  Medea  informs  us,  of  the  Medea, 
the  Philoctetes,  the  Dictys  and  a  satyric  drama  called  the  Har- 
vesters. The  Medea  is  extant  and  requires  as  a  background  a 
house  or  palace,  as  did  also  without  doubt  the  Dictys.^ ^'^  But  for 
the  Philoctetes  it  was  a  mountain  side  with  a  cave,  as  in  the  Philoc- 
tetes of  Sophocles  and  probably  also  the  Philoctetes  of  Aeschylus."^ 
This  Bethe  denied,  insisting  that  the  setting  for  the  Philoctetes, 
as  for  the  Medea  and  the  Dictys,  must  also  have  been  a  house. ^""^ 

times  been  questioned,  as  by  Reiscli,  op.  cit.,  p.  211  ;  see  also  Mtiller,  op.  cit., 
p.  322.  But  the  evidence  appears  to  be  against  this  view  ;  see  Haigli-Pickard- 
Cambiidge,  op.  cit.,  pp.  10-24  ;  also  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  197  ff. 

!«■>  See  Apoll.  2,  4,  1  and  .3,  and  Wecklein,  S.-B.  d.  k.  b.  Akad.  der  Wiss.  z. 
Munchen,  I  (1888).  109  ff.  There  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that  a  house 
formed  the  background,  but  complete  proof  is  lacking. 

165  See,  for  example,  the  remarks  of  Jebb,  The  Philoctetes  of  Sophocles,  p.  xv. 

KG  Prolegomena  (189(5),  p.  200.  He  argues  in  the  first  place  that  not  until 
about  420  did  any  play  known  to  us  recjuire  a  setting  other  than  a  building. 
He  excludes  of  course  the  earliest  dramas  of  Aeschylus  and  also  the  Cyclops, 
"  well  stiiv.e  Zeit  nicht  feststeht. "     Whatever  force  this  dubious  argument  may 


78  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

But  his  arguments  will  not  bear  examination,  and  the  traditional 
assumption  is  fully  justified.^" 

We  may  assume  then  that  for  this  series  of  plays  the  scene 
was  changed  from  a  house  (Medea)  to  a  mountain  side  (Philoc- 
tetes),  back  again  to  a  house  (Dictys),  and  finally  to  a  country 
region  (Harvesters).  What  setting  was  demanded  by  the  comedy 
that  is  beheved  to  have  closed  the  clay's  performances  is  not 
known,  and  is  unimportant.  So  the  Oedipus  Coloneus  of  Sophocles 
^\^th  its  sacred  grove  was  in  all  probability  preceded  or  followed 
by  a  play  or  plays  which  required  a  temple  or  other  building  as 
the  background.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  history 
of  the  fifth-century  drama  there  were  scores,  perhaps  hundreds, 
of  similar  instances  in  which  several  changes  of  the  set  were  neces- 
sary in  the  course  of  a  single  day. 

once  have  possessed  has  since  been  nullified  by  the  discovery  of  the  Irhneutae 
of  Sophocles  (see  Pearson,  Fragments  of  Sopliocles^  I  (1917),  pp.230,  231).  His 
second  argument  is  that  the  word  in  the  paraphrase  of  Dion  C'hrysostom  (or. 
lix)  proves  that  in  the  Euripideau  play  the  background  represented  a  hut  or 
house.  But  he  deliberately  suppresses  the  evidence  of  such  passages  as  Philoc- 
tetes  (Soph.),  vs.  286  :  (iaia  ryd'  vwb  (rrey-Q  and  vs.  298  :  olKovnipt]  .  .  .  aTiy-rj. 
In  both  of  these,  as  in  vs.  1262  (which  Bethe  cites),  a-T^yij  refers  to  the  cave  of 
Philoctetes.  Compare  also  Antig.,  vss.  888,  1100 ;  i'ragment  (Soph.)  176, 
Nauck,  ed.  2,  and  Cyclops,  vs.  29. 

i'"'^  The  suggestion  of  von  Wilamowitz  that  Adesp.  frag.  389,  Nauck,  ed.  2, :  ovk 
f<TT'  ev  avTpois  \ivKbs,  &  ^iv\  dpyvpos,  belongs  to  the  Philoctetes  of  Euripides  can- 
not of  course  be  substantiated. 

It  is  perhaps  worth  noting  that  certain  Etruscan  caskets,  which  depict  the 
scene  between  rhiloctetes  and  the  envoys,  follow  the  Euripideau  version.  These 
represent  Philoctetes  as  sitting  before  a  cave.  See  Schlie,  Die  Durstellunyen 
des  troischen  Sagenkreise  auf  etruskischen  Asrhenkiste  beschrieben,  etc.  (1868), 
pp.  134-150  ;  also  Baumeister,  Uenkmdler,  tig.  1483. 


VI 

HOW  WERE  THE  CHANGES  OF  SETTING  EFFECTED? 

VARIOUS   THEORIES  168 

The  significance  of  the  changes  of  setting  which  were  dis- 
cussed in  the  preceding  chapter  is  patent.  A  program  consisting 
of  a  didascalia  (p.  76)  followed  by  a  comedy,  each  of  average 
length,  could  not  have  been  completed  in  less  than  six  or  eight 
hours  of  continuous  acting.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  long 
pauses  between  the  separate  plays  for  the  readjustment  of  the 
setting  would  have  been  impracticable, ^^^  although  it  is  possible 
of  course  that  a  longer  interval  may  have  been  ordinarily  allowed 
between  the  conclusion  of  the  didascalia  and  the  presentation  of 
the  comedy  that  followed.  According  to  Robert  this  may  have 
been  even  an  hour  in  length.'^"     But  that  so  long  an  interval  was 

168  Selected  bibliography : 

Miiller,  Die  yrlechische  Bnhnenalterthiimer  (1886),  §§  12,  13. 

Oehmiehen,  Bus  BUhnenwesen  (lev  Griechen  und  Bomer  (1800),  §§  55,  56. 

Haigh.  The  Attic  Theatre  (1889),  pp.  164  ff.  ;    ibid.  (ed.  3,  11107),' pp.  17t»  ff. 

P.  Gardner,  "The  Scenery  of  the  Greek  Stage,"  Jour.  Hell.  Stud.  XIX  (1899), 
252-264. 

Navarre,  Dionysos  (18!t5),  pp.  122  ff. 

Bethe,  Prolegomena  zur  Geschichte  des  Theaters  im  Alterthum  (1896),  chaps. 
5,  10. 

Dorpfekl  und  Rei.sch,  Das  (/riecitische  Tlieater  (1896),  pp.  211  ff. 

Barnett,  The  Greek  Drama  (1900),  pp.  73  ff. 

Mantzius,  A  History  of  Theatrical  Art  in  Ancient  and  Modern  Tim^es ;  trans- 
lated by  L.  von  Co.ssel,  I  (1903),  124  ff.  The  original  was  published  in 
1897. 

Schlibl,  Die  Landschaft  auf  der  Buhne  des  filnften  vorchristlichen  Jahrhunderts 
(1912). 

von  Wilamowitz,  Aischylos,  Interpretationen  (1914),  e.specially  pp.  10,  11. 

Noack,  I,Ki]v7]  TpayiKT)  (1916). 

Flickinger,  Tlie  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1918). 
( )ther  references  are  given  in  the  footnotes. 

169  Miiller,  op.  cit.,  p.  323,  allows  seven  to  eight  hours  for  the  presentation  of 
a  didascalia. 

170  Gottingische  Gelehrte  Anzeiyen,  CLIX  (1897),  36.     He  is  speaking  of  the 

79 


80  THE    GREEK    THEATER 

not  required  for  the  rearrangement  of  the  set  appears  to  be  shov/n 
by  the  story  which  Pollux  ^^^  relates  about  the  comic  actor  Hermon, 
a  contemporary  of  Aristophanes.  Play  after  play  was  hissed 
off  the  stage  in  rapid  succession,  and  Hermon  was  summoned 
long  before  he  expected  to  be  called.  When  wanted  he  was 
absent  from  the  theater  trying  his  voice,  and  so  was  not  ready 
to  appear.  That  so  disconcerting  an  interruption  of  the  proceed- 
ings might  henceforth  be  avoided,  the  Athenians,  continues 
Pollux,  instituted  the  custom  of  blowing  a  trumpet  at  the  com- 
mencement of  each  new  performance. 

In  view  of  these  considerations  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  pauses  between  the  separate  dramas  were  of  brief  dura- 
tioji-     How  then  were  the  changes  of  setting  effected  ? 

The  discussions  of  this  subject  are  pecuharly  unsatisfactory, 
not  only  in  the  works  of  Mliller  ^^^  and  Oehmichen  and  in  those 
of  the  earher  writers  whose  theories  Miiller  so  admirably  sum- 
marizes, but  in  the  more  recent  treatises  as  well.  Thus  Haigh 
describes  the  different  types  of  settings  required,  but  gives  no 
adequate  consideration  to  the  manner  in  which  the  set  was  changed 
from  act  to  act  and  from  play  to  play  beyond  suggesting  the  use 
of  painted  scenery  "attached  to  the  wall  at  the  back  of  the  stage" 
and  of  mechanical  devices  like  the  eccyclema  and  the  periacti  (p. 
83).  Unsatisfactory  too,  though  far  superior,  is  Gardner's 
essay,  which  was  written  in  part  as  a  protest  against  the  views 
expressed  by  Haigh.  Bethe's  discussion  is  arbitrary  and  incom- 
plete, while  the  argument  of  Dorpfeld  and  Reisch  is  vitiated 
throughout  by  the  assumption  of  movable  screens,  and  of  other 
similar  devices.  The  paragraphs  in  Navarre  are  brief  and  incon- 
clusive ;  Barnett's  summary,  sketchy  and  uncritical.  Mantzius 
merely  glances  at  the  subject ;    Schiibl  barely  mentions  it ;    von 

erection  of  the  scenery  for  the  Lysistrata  of  Aristophanes,  which  "mit  einiger- 
massen  geschulten  Arbeitskritften  in  einer  Stunde  leieht  bewerkstelHgen  liess. 
Und  so  hxnge  wird  man  die  Zwischenpau.se  doch  unbedenkUch  bemessen  durfeu." 

1^1  Onomasticon,  IV,  88. 

i'2  For  the  treatises  referred  to  in  tliis  paragraph  see  note  168. 


HOW   WERE    THE    CHANGES   EFFECTED?  81 

Wilamowitz  dismisses  it  with  brief,  tliougli  suggestive,  comments; 
Petersen  "^  virtually  ignores  it;  Fiechter  is  silent.'^*  By  far  the 
most  satisfactory  of  all  is  the  recent  and  thoroughly  admirable 
discussion  of  the  Greek  theater  by  Flicldnger,  but  even  this 
treatise  deals  with  this  particular  problem  in  a  manner  more 
or  less  incidental. 

To  extend  this  list  were  unnecessary.  The  results  would  remain 
the  same ;  while  the  annotated  editions,  new  and  old  alike,  of 
the  Greek  dramatists  merely  add  to  the  obfuscation. 

The  explanation  of  this  unfortunate  condition  lies  in  the  evi- 
dence itself.  This  is  meager  and  uncertain.  To  some  it  has 
appeared  as  it  were  a  stony  field,  barren  and  therefore  negligible ; 
but  to  others,  as  virgin  plowland  awaiting  the  tillage.  Error 
has  flourished  with  the  truth  like  darnel  among  the  wheat,  and 
the  harvest  has  been  a  confused  and  diverse  crop  of  multitudinous 
conclusions.  One  incitant  of  unsound  conjecture  has  been  neglect 
of  the  essential  elements  of  the  problem  ;  another  prolific  source  of 
error,  here  as  elsewhere,  the  tendency  to  ascribe,  to  an  early 
period  devices  and  usages  of  a  later  age. 

An  illustration  of  the  last  fault  is  found  in  the  not  uncommon 
assumption  of  a  scaena  ductilis  or  pair  of  movable  screens  that 
could  be  opened  and  pushed  to  either  side  like  scenes  in  the  modern 
theater.  This,  as  we  have  already  observed,  is  one  of  the  chief 
fallacies  in  the  argument  of  Dorpfeld  and  Reisch/^^  and  Dorp- 

173  Die  attische  Tragodie  als  Bild-  und  BUhnenkunst  (1915). 

17^  Die  baugeschichtUche  Entwtrklung  des  antiken  Theaters  (1914). 

1'^  Op.  cit,  pp.  212,  214,  etc.  Compare  the  words  of  Robert  (Gottingische 
Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  CLXIV,  1002,  430) :  "  Die  Vorstelluiig  von  einge.schobenen 
Wanden  mit  gemalter  Landschaft,  die  uiiselige  scaena  ductilis,  i.st  iiberliaupt 
die  krankeste  Stelle  in  Diirpfeld.s  System,  desseii  Kenipiuikt  sie  zi;m  Gluuk 
niclit  bertihrt."  Tlie  error  goes  back  to  G.  Hermann,  Opiiscula  VI  (1835), 
pt.  2,  p.  165.  Niejahr  (Quaestiones  Aristophaneae  Scaenicae,  1877,  p.  38) 
rejects  it,  as  do  Gardner  (op.  cit.,  pp.  257,  258),  and  others.  Flickinger  (op. 
cit.)  rightly  ignores  it. 

The  only  mention  of  a  scaena  ductilis  in  classical  literature  is  found  in 
Servius'  note  on  the  Georgics  of  Virgil  (111,  24):  .  .  .  "(scaena)  ductilis  turn 
cvun  tractLs  tabulatis  hac  atque  iliac  species  picturae  nudabatur  interior. '" 
Seneca  in  Epist.  88,  22  refers  to  such  a  device  as  one  of  the  mechanical  con- 
trivances of  the  stage.     But  both  wi'iters  are  late.     The  sill  discovered  in  the 


82  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

feld  has  recently  avowed  anew  his  beUef /^^  but  his  words  do  not 
carry  conviction.  For  the  theory  is  rooted  in  the  soil  of  un- 
substantiated conjecture.  This  is  true  also  of  the  kindred  and 
widely  prevalent  assumption  of  large  painted  canvases,  or  the 
like,  whether  placed  before  the  scene-building  or  attached  to  its 
front-wall.^"  This  hypothesis  rests  upon  the  tradition  regarding 
Agatharchus,^'^  but  it  was  effectually  shattered  by  Gardner  as 
long  ago  as  1899,^^^  and  has  been  questioned  or  definitely  rejected 
by  many  others.  So  too  the  gratuitous  assumption  of  a  huge 
curtain  large  enough  to  conceal  the  background  and  the  space 
immediately  before  it  may  be  mentioned  only  to  be  dismissed. 
It  is  unsupported  by  evidence,  and  at  the  best  would  have  been 
merely  a  means  of  concealing  the  setting,  not  of  changing  it.^^" 

theater  at  Megalopolis  and  often  explained  as  a  runway  for  a  scaena  ductilis 
(Das  griechische  Theater,  pp.  138  ff.)  cannot  have  been  used  for  this  pm-pose 
(see  Bethe,  Gbttbuim-he  Gelehrte  Anzeiyen,  CLIX,  1807,  724  ff.  ;  Puchstein,  Die 
griechische  Buhne  (1901),  p.  90,  and  especially  Fiechter,  op.  cit.,  p.  19).  Streit's 
conjectures  and  attempted  reconstructions  (Las  Theater.  Untersuchungen  ilber 
das  Tlieaterbauwerk  bei  den  klassischen  und  modernen  Volkern  (1903),  pp. 
17  ff.)  succeed  in  being  merely  damnatory.  See  finther  Durm,  Die  Baukunst 
der  Griechen  (ed.  3,  1910),  pp.  482,  483. 

i"G  Jahrb.  d.  arch.  Inst.  Anzeiger,  XXX  (1915),  102:  .  .  .  "hates  doch  zu 
alien  Zeiten  ausser  den  kleinen  Pinakes  audi  griissere  gemalte  Skenen  aus  Holz 
Oder  Zeug  gegeben,  die  vor  die  steinerne  oder  holzerne  Skene  gestellt  oder  gezogen 
werden  konnten  und  aus  mehreren  solchen  Prospektbildern  bestanden  haben 
mogen." 

1"  Miiller,  op.  cit.,  pp.  140  ff.  ;  Oehmichen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  Ill  ff.;  Dorpfeld- 
Eeisch,  op.  cit,  pp.  210  ff.  ;  Haigh,  The  Attic  Theatre  (1889),  pp.  16-5  ff.  ;  re- 
peated in  the  second  (1898)  and  third  (1907)  editions;  Tucker,  The  Choephori 
of  Aeschylus  (U)Ol),  p.  xli.  ;  Starkie,  The  Acharnians  of  Aristoj)hanes  (VJ09) , 
p.  6  ;  Schtibl,  op.  cit,  pp.  4  ff.  ;  Bywater,  Aristotle  on  the  Art  of  Poetry  (1909), 
p.  137  ;  etc. 

1^8  He  was  a  painter  and  was  employed,  Vitruvius  tells  us  (VII,  Praef.  §  1), 
while  Aeschylus  was  still  presenting  plays  "seaenam  facere "  :  "  primum 
Agatharcus  Athenis  Aeschylo  docente  tragoediam  seaenam  fecit  et  de  ea  com- 
mentarium  reliquit."  Aristotle  (Poetics  1449  a,  18)  ascribes  the  introduction  of 
a Kr)vo^pa(pla  to  Sophocles :  rpeh  (i.e.  a  third  actor)  5^  /cat  <rK7]voypa(plav  So^o/cX^s. 
But  precisely  what  Vitruvius  meant  by  scaena  and  Aristotle  by  <TKt)voypa(pia  is 
not  clear.  In  my  opinion  the  reference  is  to  the  scene-building,  not  to  painted 
scenery.     See  the  next  note,  also  note  199,  and  page  67. 

179  See  note  168. 

180  See  the  sane  comments  of  Flickinger,  op.  cit. ,  pp.  243  ff .  The  use  of  a 
cui-tain  is  assumed  by  Bethe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  187  ff. ,  and  Jahrb.  d.  arch.  Inst.  XV 
(1900),  73,  by  Dorpfeld-Reisch,  op.  cit,  pp.  213,  253  ff.,  and  by  many  others. 
Particularly  pathetic  is  the  "  ziigellose  Phantasie  "  of  Streit  (op.  cit.  (see  note 


HOW   WERE    THE    CHANGES   EFFECTED  ?  83 

But  there  are  two  (possilDly  three)  mechanical  devices  for 
changing  the  scene  that  present  a  stronger  claim  for  recognition. 
The  first  of  these  was  known  as  the  periacti  (TreptaKTot)  and  is 
described  as  a  pair  of  revolving  prisms  with  a  scene  painted  on 
each  of  their  several  sides.  It  is  mentioned  only  by  late  writers/*^ 
and  cannot  with  certainty  be  ascribed  to  the  fifth  century.  In 
spite  of  this  fact,  however,  because  of  the  evident  simplicity, 
not  to  say  crudeness,  of  such  a  contrivance,  many  scholars  accept 
it  in  good  faith.  The  second  was  known  as  the  eccydeyna  {Ikkv- 
KkTqfjua)  and  presents  a  more  serious  and  more  perplexing  problem. 
This  was  certainly  in  use  during  the  closing  years  of  the  fifth 
century,  possibly  earlier,  and  was  employed  for  showing  or  sug- 
gesting interior  scenes.  The  ancient  descriptions  are  confused. 
It  is  sometimes  spoken  of  in  such  a  way  as  to  suggest  a  wheeled 
platform  which  could  be  pushed  out  through  a  door,^^-  at  other 
times  it  is  referred  to  as  a  wheeled  and  revolving  platform. ^^^  More 
than  this  we  do  not  know,  except  that  it  was  used  by  Aristophanes 
in  the  Acharnians  (exhibited  in  425),  verses  408  ff.,  and  in  the 
Women  at  the  Thesmophoria  (c.  411),  verses  95  ff.  (cf.  vs.  265), 
in  both  of  which  passages  the  author  is  plainly  burlesquing  the 
tragic  poet  Euripides.  Naturally  modern  opinion  is  divided. 
There  are  those  who  beUeve  that  the  eccydema  was  a  semicircular 
platform  attached  to  a  portion  of  the  front  wall  of  the  scene-build- 

17.5),  pp.  11, 14)  :  About  the  year  427/6  a  large  curtain  was  introduced.  It  was 
stretched  between  the  paraskenia  and  naturally  would  sag  at  the  center.  In 
order  then  that  it  shciuld  not  drag  upon  the  gTound  when  opened,  it  would 
be  necessaiy  to  leave  the  two  ends  suspended  in  the  air.  But  in  such  a  drama 
as  the  Suppliants  of  Em-ipides,  in  which  a  gi'oup  of  actors  took  their  positions 
before  the  opening  of  the  play,  the  spectators  would  be  highly  amused  by 
"den  komischen  Anblick  des  Fusswiriw^arrs."  Ergo,  to  avoid  exciting  the 
risibles  of  the  audience  an  elevated  stage  was  rendered  necessaiy  ! 

181  Pollux,  IV,  126  ;  Vitruvius,  V,  6  ;  Servius  on  Virgil,  Georgics  III,  24. 

182  So  especially  Pollirx,  IV,  128. 

183  Scholia  on  Aeschylus'  Eumenides,  vs.  64  ((rrpap^vra  fxrjxci.vrjiJ.aTa),  Arhar- 
nians  of  Aristophanes,  vs.  408  {nr)xa.vr)tia  ^vXivov  Tp6xovs  e'xo''<  ottc/)  rrepia-Tpe- 
(pSfxevov) ,  Clouds  ot  Aristophanes,  vs.  184  (aTpa4>€VTos  rod  iyKUKX-qixaros),  Clemens 
Alexandrinu.s,  Protrepticus,  12,  p.  418  Dind.  {(TKevbs  n  virbTpoxov  .  .  .  ob 
(TTpecpoixivov). 


84 


THE    GREEK   THEATER 


ing  and  the  whole  revolved  about  a  pivot  after  the  manner  of  a 
butterfly  valve  ;  ^^^  others  adhere  to  the  older  theory  of  a  trundle- 
platform;  1^^  while  Fliekinger  contends  that  the  term  was  generic 
and  that  both  types  were  used,  the  former  until  about  the  year 
430  B.C.  (see  Fig.  22),  the  latter  during  the  closing  decades  of 
the  century.  ^^^ 

Equally  divergent   are  the  theories  regarding  the  extent  to 
which  the  eccydema  was  employed.     The  extreme  conservatives 


Fig.  22.  —  The    Scene-Building    of    the    Early    Fifth-Century    Theater 

(Flickinger). 

accepting  the  statements  of  the  scholiasts  assume  its  general 
use  by  Aeschylus  and  Sophocles  as  well  as  by  Euripides  and 
Aristophanes,  not  to  mention  the  host  of  poets  whose  plays  have 
been  lost.  The  extreme  radicals  on  the  other  hand  deny  the 
credibility  of  the  scholia  and  reject  the  eccydema  except  when 
the  evidence  in  its  favor  is  overwhelming.  Between  these  two 
positions  there  is  every  shade  of  oj)inion.     It  is  largely  a  matter 


184  See  especially  Exon,  "A  New  Theory  of  the  Eccydema,"  RermathenaXI 
(1901),  1.S3  ff.,  who  assumes  that  tliere  was  a  separate  erryrlerna  adjoining  each 
of  the  three  doors.  For  various  anticipations  of  Exon"s  theory  see  Reisch's  ar- 
ticle on  the  eKKVKXrjua  in  Tauly-Wissowa,  lieal-Encycl.  der  class.  Altertumswiss., 
V  (1!)03). 

185  Rees,  Class.  Phil.  X  (1915),  134  ff.,  concludes  that  it  was  merely  an  easy 
chair  or  couch  on  wheels. 

186  Op.  cit.,  pp.  285  ff.  He  holds  further  that  exostra  {i^warpa)  was  but  an- 
other and  more  specific  name  for  the  second  type  of  the  eccydema  ;  compare 
Pollux  IV,  129  :  T7)v  5i  i^dbffTpav  ravrbv  tQ  iKKVK\rifj.aTi  vofiL^ovai  ;  also  Hesychius: 
e^wcrrpa-  iirl  rrjs  <tk7}v7js  to  iKKVK\7]fj.a.  Those  who  deny  that  the  eccyclema  was  a 
trundle-platform  reject  this  testimony  ;  see  Reiscli,  op.  cit.  (see  note  184). 


HOW   WERE    THE    CHANGES   EFFECTED  ?  85 

of  temperament,  and  no  compromise  seems  possible.     Quot  homi- 
nes, tot  sententiae}^'^ 

Dismissing  these  vexatious  questions,  which  after  all  concern 
merely  the  superficies  of  the  subject,  let  us  strike  at  the  heart 
of  the  matter  and  inquire  what  theories  have  been  advanced  in 
recent  years  with  reference  to  the  scene-building  itself.  Here  as 
elsewhere  the  evidence  is  so  defective  that  we  need  not  be  sur- 
prised at  a  wide  divergency  of  view.  But  to  mention  every  shade 
and  variety  of  hypotheses  elicited  by  this  problem  of  the  change 
of  settings  would  be  both  wearisome  and  gratuitous.  A  few  of 
the  more  typical  theories  alone  will  suffice.  These  fall  naturally 
into  two  main  groups  as  follows  : 

1 .  The  scene-building  was  taken  down  between  plays  as  occasion 
demanded  and  rebuilt  in  new  form  or  even  entirely  removed. 

2.  The  skene  remained  standing  until  the  end  of  the  day's 
performances,  or,  better,  until  the  close  of  the  dramatic  festival. 

The  first  of  these  theories  was  originally  proposed  by  Dorpfeld 
with  reference  to  the  earlier  period, ^^^  but  was  extended  by  Robert 
so  as  to  include  even  the  late  fifth  century  as  well,  and  to  apply 
in  its  extreme  form  to  such  plays  as  the  Birds  of  Aristophanes 
(exhibited  in  414  b.c),  the  Antiope  and  Andromeda  of  Euripides, 
and  the  Philodetes  (409  b.c.)  and  Oedipus  at  Colonus  (402  b.c.) 
of  Sophocles. '^^    Barnett  states  it  frankly  :  "In  some  dramas  of  this 

187  A  valuable  study  of  the  problem  is  that  by  Neckel,  Das  Ekkyklema  (1890). 
whose  innumerable  citations  of  the  earlier  literature  constitute  an  illuminating 
commentary.     Neckel  himself  is  one  of  the  radicals. 

188  Das  griechische  Theater  (1896),  p.  371  :  "  Wiihrend  urspriinglich  die  Skene 
nicht  nur  am  Ende  des  Testes,  soncleru  audi  zuweilen  nach  jeder  Auftiihrung 
fortgenommen  oder  verandert  wurde,  ging  man  bald  dazu  liber,  den  Ban  selbst 
steheu  zu  lassen  und  nur  seine  Vorderwand  den  aufzuftihrenden  Stiicken  ent- 
sprechend  zu  verandern  oder  mit  andern  Wiirten,  man  errichtete  vor  der  Skene 
ein  Proskenion."     See  also  p.  287. 

189  Hermes,  XXXII  (1897),  4.38  :  "So  lernen  wir  die  Skene  des  fiinften  Jalir- 
hunderts  aLs  eine  einfache  Bretterbude  kennen,  die  sirli  mit  leichter  Miihe  zwi- 
schen  den  einzelnen  Stiicken  abreissen  und  wieder  auf  bauen  oder  verandern  liess. 
Audi  mehrere  Buden  dieser  Art  konnten  leidit  neben  eiuander  errichtet  wer- 
den."  See  also  note  170  (p.  79)  and  Gottinglsche  Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  CLIX 
(1897),  36:  "  Die  Vogel  lassen  sich  scenisch  nicht  vom  Philoctet  und  einer 
Reihe  anderer  Stiicke  trennen,  in  denen  der  Schauplatz  nicht  vor  einem  Gebaude, 


86  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

• 

period  [that  is,  tlie  closing  decades  of  the  fifth  century]  no  skene 
seems  to  have  been  used.  The  scene  was  here  the  open  country 
in  which  'rocks,  if  needed,  could  be  more  easily  built  up  of  stones 
and  boards'  (Robert)."  ^^^  And  Robert  himself  in  his  article  on 
the  Ichneutae  of  Sophocles  ^^^  has  recently  reasserted  the  doctrine. 
"There  is  therefore,"  he  writes  with  reference  to  this  play,  "no 
scenic  background,  but  merely  trees  in  the  orchestra  —  the  old 
Aeschylean  setting  to  which  toward  the  end  of  the  fifth  century 
tragedy  also  again  returns  (Andromeda,  P-kiloctetes,  Oedi^ms  at 
Colonus).''  This  is  the  view  also  of  von  Wilamowitz,  who  says 
with  regard  to  the  scenic  arrangements  of  the  IcliJieutae:  "There 
is  no  back-wall,  the  cave  is  underground."  ^^~  The  theory  now 
appears  to  have  at  least  the  partial  sanction  also  of  Flickinger.^^^ 
"The  scene-building  of  this  period"  (about  465  B.C.)  he  writes 
(p.  66),  "must  be  thought  of  as  quite  unpretentious.  ...  Its 
construction  was  flimsy  enough  for  it  to  be  capable  of  being 
easily  rebuilt  or  remodeled  to  meet  the  scenic  requirements  of  each 

sondem  im  Freien  liegt.  Es  siml,  aasser  den  ,G;enannten  beiden  Stlicken,  die 
Andromeda,  die  Antiope,  der  ( )idipu.s  auf  Kolonos,  der  Kyklops,  also  lauter 
Dramen  aiLs  dem  Ende  des  fiinften  .Jahrhundeits,  einer  Periode,  wo  sich  in  der 
Tlieaterentwic'l^eluns;  tiberhaupt  vielfach  eine  RUckkehr  zum  Alten  benierklich 
maclit.  .  .  .  Was  berechtigt  uns  nun  zu  der  Supposition,  dass  jene  Hohlen  und 
Strandfelsen,  auf  die  Vorderwand  der  Skene  aufgemalt  und  nicht  wie  bei 
Aiscliylos  korperlicli  dargestellt,  aus  Bohlen  und  Steinen  aufgebaut  waren  ? 
Vielleicht  lagen  sie  nicht  inehr  in  der  Mitte,  sondern  in  der  liinteren  Halfte  der 
Orchestra,  das  wage  ich  nicht  zu  entscheiden.  Aber  das  behaupte  ich,  dass  die 
alte  Art  der  Herstellung  die  einfachere,  praktischere,  bilUgere  und  wirkungsvol- 
lere  war." 

190  Op.  cit.,  p.  74,  note  2.  On  page  71  he  remarks  :  "  My  own  views  are  in 
the  main  those  of  Robert. ' ' 

191  Hermes,  XLYII  (1912),  536.    The  Ichneutae  is  a  satyr-play. 

192  Aischylos,  Interpretationen  (1914),  p.  10.  After  remarkingthat  the  Cyclops 
requires  a  back-wall  he  continues  :  "  Dagegen  sieht  es  fast  so  aus,  als  hatte  die 
Trag(')die  der  letzten  Zeit  des  Jahrhunderts  wie  im  anderen  audi  in  der  Anlage 
der  Buhne  archaistische  Neigungen  gehabt  .  .  .  auch  der  Oedipas  auf  Kolonos 
kann  gar  keine  architektonisch  Vlekorierte  Hinterwandhaben,  und  da  denkt  man 
sicli  am  besten  eine  Tiefe  des  Spielplatzes,  ahnlich  den  Ichneuten.  Nm-  in  die 
Tiefe  kann,  so  viel  ich  sehe,  Oedipus  abgehen." 

See  also  Neue  Jahrb.  f.  d.  klass.  "Altertum,  XXIX  (1912),  457,  note  1  .- 
"  Ansteigendes  (ielande  wird  flir  den  Kolonos  des  Oedipus,  der  keine  HaiLsfront 
zeigen  kann,  und  manche  andere  Tragodien  und  Komodien  anzunehmen  sein." 

193  The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1918). 


HOW   WERE    THE    CHANGES   EFFECTED?  87 

drama,  for  of  course  it  was  not  until  long  after  the  introduction 
of  a  scenic  background  that  the  plays  were  uniformly  laid  before  a 
palace  or  temple."  See  also  page  228.  But  that  the  scene-build- 
ing was  sometimes  entirely  removed,  as  Dorpfeld,  Robert  and 
von  Wilamowitz  suggest,  the  author  does  not  state,  although  in 
one  passage  at  least  this  seems  to  be  implied.^^^ 

Be  this  as  it  may  the  theory  appears  to  me  to  be  most  improb- 
able. For,  whatever  the  building  may  have  been  in  465  B.C.,  before 
the  end  of  the  century  certainly  it  became,  as  we  saw  in  chapter  3 
(p.  32)  and  again  in  chapter  4  (p.  59),  a  structure  of  considerable 
size  and  substantialness.  It  was  two  stories  in  height  and  must 
have  been  at  least  twenty  meters  long  and  more  than  four  meters 
deep,  and  strong  enough  to  support  several  persons  at  a  time 
upon  its  roof.  To  suppose  that  a  structure  of  so  great  magnitude 
and  strength  was  taken  down  and  rebuilt  between  plays,  or  even 
entirely  removed,  is  most  unreasonable. ^^^  For,  as  we  have  already 
observed,  with  a  program  consisting  of  four  or  five  performances, 
long  intervals  between  plays  for  the  readjustment  of  the  setting 
would  have  been  impracticable. ^^^  Significant  too  in  this  connection 
is  the  story  related  by  Pollux  about  the  comic  actor  Hermon 

194  He  writes  (pp.  226,  227)  :  "  That  such  a  primitive  theater  [i.  e.  one  without 
scene-building  or  back-scene,  but  in  which  ' '  there  might  be  erected  for  tempo- 
raiy  use  some  such  theatrical  '  property '  as  an  altar  or  a  tomb,"]  would  suffice 
for  the  needs  of  that  earlier  age,  [that  is,  from  499  to  about  465  b.c]  or  even  a 
later  period,  is  proven  by  the  remains  of  the  structm-e  at  Thoricus,  which  was 
never  brought  to  a  higher  state  of  development,  and  by  the  fact  that  even  at  a 
later  period  dramatists  sometimes  voluntarily  reverted  to  this  unpretentious 
stage-setting.  For  examj^le,  in  Sophocles''  Oedipus  at  Colonus  the  background 
represented  the  untrodden  grove  of  the  Eumenides,  so  that  practically  all  the 
entrances  and  exits  were  resti-icted  to  the  parodi."  But  see  pp.66  (bottom), 
and  235,  236,  where  the  use  of  painted  fim«A-es  between  the  columns  of  the  pro- 
scenium is  mentioned.  See  also  p.  231.  The  scenic  arrangements  required  for 
the  Ichneutae  he  does  not  discuss. 

19*  The  supporters  of  this  theoiy  have  of  course  assumed  that  the  fifth-century 
Skene  was  a  small  and  flimsy  affair. 

196  Robert,  as  we  have  seen  (note  170),  allows  an  hour  in  the  case  of  the  Lysis- 
trata.  But  for  the  Ichneutae  or  the  Oedipus  at  Colonus,  according  to  his  theory, 
even  an  hour  would  scarcely  be  sufficient.  One  may  compare  the  remark  of 
Miiller  (Buhnenalterthilmer  (1886),  p.  162),  that  "im  fiinften  Jahrhundert  die 
Decoration  nur  milhsam  und  in  langerer  Zeit  zwischen  zwei  Stiicken  verandert 
werden  konnte." 


88  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

(p.  80).  If  on  such  occasions,  when  play  after  play  was  hissed 
off  the  stage  in  rapid  succession,  the  scenic  requirements  of  the 
rejected  dramas  resembled,  let  us  say,  those  of  the  Euripidean 
didascalia  of  the  year  431  (p.  77)  or  of  that  which  included  the 
Oedipus  at  Colonus,  the  day's  entertainment  would  have  consisted 
chiefly  in  watching  the  feverish  labors  of  scene-shifters  and  stage- 
carpenters.  Surely  it  is  far  more  reasonable  to  assume  that  the 
scene-building  remained  intact  throughout  the  day,  if  not  indeed 
throughout  the  dramatic  festival.^" 

This  brings  us  to  the  second  theory  mentioned  above,  that 
the  skene  remained  standing  until  the  end  of  the  day's  performances 
or  even  until  the  close  of  the  festival.  The  hypothesis  appears 
in  two  forms : 

1.  The  skene  was  painted  to  represent  a  house. 

2.  The  skene  was  not  itself  adorned,  but  was  in  various  ways 
more  or  less  completely  screened  from  view. 

The  first  of  these  hypotheses  is  stated  in  an  extreme  form  by 
Sheppard,^^^  who  says  :  "It  is  improbable  that  the  appearance  of 
the  painted  building  was  changed  for  different  plays ;  in  general 
the  words  of  the  drama  would  sufficiently  indicate  whether  it 
represented  a  temple  or  a  palace.  Further  indications  may  have 
been  given  by  the  showing  of  conventional  symbols  or  tokens.  .  .  . 
But  the  words  alone  are  generally  enough."  This  is  a  modifica- 
tion of  the  theory  as  maintained  by  Gardner, ^^^  namely,  that  the 
painted  scene-building  was  not  changed  from  play  to  play,  but 
may  have  been  on  occasion  partially  concealed  by  means  of  cur- 
tains.    "Any  differentia  of  scenery  necessary  for  the  purposes  of 

197  Haigh,  in  The  Attic-  Theatre,  ed.  2  (1896),  p.  147,  assumes  that  the  scene- 
building  was  a  permanent  structure  and  was  not  taken  down  even  at  the  close 
of  the  festival ;  so  also  ed.  3,  revised  by  Pickard-Cambridge  (1907),  p.  117. 

198  Greek  Tragedy  (1911),  p.  14. 

11)9  Op.  rit.  (see  note  168).  Gardner  based  his  conclusions  in  large  part  on  the 
tradition  regarding  Agatharchus  (see  note  178)  and  his  interest  in  perspective. 
Ill  (Gardner's  judgment  Agatharchus  painted  the  scene-building  itself,  not  detach- 
able screens.  See  also  Kroll  in  Satura  Vuidrina  (1896),  p.  63  ;  Bobert,  G'ott. 
Gel.  Anz.,  CLXIV  (1902),  421  ;  and  Noack,  op.  cit.,  pp.  41  ff. 


Bow   WERE    THE    CHANGES   EFFECTED  ?  89 

any  particular  play,"  he  writes,  "could  be  added  either  by  the 
use  of  periacti  [see  above,  p.  83],  or  by  the  introduction  of  very 
simple  stage  properties"  (p.  264).  "If  the  edifice  had  to  serve 
as  a  temple,  it  would  do  very  well  with  slight  adaptation.  If  it 
had  to  serve,  as  in  comedy,  as  a  row  of  private  houses,  it  would 
also  serve.  There  is  more  difficulty  in  seeing  how  it  would  serve  in 
the  satyric  plays,  where  rocks  and  caves  were  supposed  to  mark 
the  scene.  .  .  .  We  may  fairly  suppose  that  a  few  rocks  strewn 
on  the  stage,  perhaps  a  curtain  or  two  to  hide  part  of  the  skene, 
would  suffice  to  satisfy  the  audience  that  it  was  a  glen  or  a  moun- 
tain-side '  (p.  257). 

It  is  clear  from  these  words  that  Gardner  himself  was  not 
insensible  to  one  of  the  objections  to  the  theory  which  he  was 
defending.  But  even  if  we  grant  that  this  objection  is  not  insuper- 
able, we  are  confronted  by  another  that  is  far  more  serious,  and 
this  is  the  failure  to  account  for  the  proskenion.  Gardner  assumed 
that  in  the  fifth  century  there  was  a  low  stage  which  gradually 
became  higher  and  higher  until  the  thirteen-foot  proskenion  was 
attained,  which  he  believed  was  also  a  stage.  But,  as  we  shall 
see  later  (p.  109),  this  assumption  is  untenable.  Another  objec- 
tion lies  in  the  omission  to  provide  for  the  portico-scenes,  which, 
as  we  saw  in  chapter  4  (p.  55),  are  both  frequent  and  important. 
This  reconstruction  of  the  scene-building  of  the  fifth  century, 
therefore,  must  be  rejected  as  unsatisfactory. 

Let  us  examine,  then,  the  second  hypothesis  mentioned  above, 
that  the  skene  was  not  itself  adorned,  but  served  as  background 
and  support  for  the  erection  of  various  scenic  decorations.  One 
of  the  espousers  of  this  theory  is  Haigh.-"*'  "The  wooden  hoarding" 
at  the  back  of  the  stage  was  nothing  more  than  the  front  of  the 
actoi-s'  room ;  at  first  it  had  no  scenic  significance.  But  by  the 
time  of  the  Oresteia  of  Aeschylus  (458  b.c.)  "the  old  actors'  booth 
had  become  a  regular  scenic  background.  The  bare  hoarding 
was  covered  with  painting,  to  represent  a  palace,  or  a  temple^ 

200  Op.  cit.,  ed.  3,  pp.  179  £f. 


90  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

or  whatever  else  might  be  required.  This  conclusion,  which 
may  be  deduced  from  the  extant  dramas  themselves,  is  confirmed 
by  the  ancient  traditions  as  to  the  introduction  of  scene-painting" 
(p.  181).  "The  scenery  consisted  of  painted  curtains  or  boards, 
attached  to  the  wall  at  the  back  of  the  stage"  (p.  186).  "It 
need  hardly  be  remarked,"  he  continues  (p.  188),  "that  the  doors 
of  the  building  represented  by  the  painted  scenery  would  corre- 
spond more  or  less  closely  with  the  permanent  doors  in  the  back- 
wall,  so  as  to  admit  of  easy  ingress  and  egress  to  the  actors.  In 
the  same  way,  if  the  scene  was  a  cavern  in  a  country  region,  the 
entrance  to  the  cavern  would  be  made  to  correspond  with  the 
central  door  in  the  wall  at  the  back.  Concerning  the  manner  in 
which  the  scenery  was  finished  o;ff  at  the  top  nothing  can  be  laid 
down  for  certain."  But  this  doctrine  of  painted  scenery,  whether 
attached  to  the  scene-building  or  placed  before  it,  rests  upon  very 
insecure  foundations  and,  as  we  saw  above  (p.  82),  is  no  doubt 
false. 

Another  adherent  is  Bolle,-"^  who  holds  that  the  difficulties  of 
the  scenic  arrangements  can  be  most  easily  solved  by  assuming 
that  there  was  erected  on  the  orchestra-terrace  a  rude,  unadorned, 
wooden  dressing-booth,  two  to  three  meters  in  height,  and  that 
about  and  on  and  above  this  structure  the  scenic  background 
(der  Spielhintergrund)  was  constructed.  This  would  consist  of 
painted  boards,  branches  or  bushes  attached  to  wooden  supports, 
and  the  like,  and  could  be  changed  to  suit  the  needs  of  different 
plays  in  a  very  few  minutes.  This  is  simpler  and  more  satis- 
factory than  the  assumption  of  painted  scenery,  but  as  it  does 
not  explain  the  development  of  the  scene-building  in  the  fourth 
century  (p.  32),  this  view  also  must  be  dismissed  as  uncon- 
vincing. 

Another  alleged  means  of  concealing  the  skene  and  of  indicating 
a  change  of  locality  was  the  scaena  ductilis.     But,  as  we  have 

201  Die  Bvhne  des  Sophokles  (1902),  pp.  11,  2.S,  etc.  See  also  his  Die  Biihne 
des  Aeschi/lus  (1906). 


HOW   WERE    THE    CHANGES    EFFECTED  ?  91 

already  seen  (p.  81),  the  use  of  such  a  device  in  the  fifth  century 
rests  upon  unsubstantiated  conjecture,  and  this  assumption,  Uke 
the  others,  must  therefore  be  rejected  as  unsound. 

There  remains  for  consideration  the  difficult  question  of  the 
proskenion  (p.  4)  as  a  decorative  screen  and  as  a  device  for 
changing  the  setting.     Mantzius  -"-  states  the  theory  as  follows  : 

''In  order  that  the  skene  [that  is,  the  dressing-booth]  might 
be  worthy  of  forming  a  portion  of  the  festal  domain,  it  had  to 
appear  in  a  decent  shape,  and  could  not  remain  merely  a  modest 
wooden  shed.  So  a  kind  of  decorative  facade  was  built  in  front 
of  the  dressing-apartment,  a  row  of  wooden  pillars,  the  intervals 
between  which  were  filled  with  planks  [the  translator  means 
"panels"],  canvas,  rugs  and  hides.  This  decorative  wall  was 
called  the  proskenion.  .  .  .  The  proskenion  was  ten  to  twelve 
feet  high.  .  .  .  Its  roof  was  flat,  and  where  the  skene  was  in 
two  stories,  the  roof  of  the  proskenion  formed  a  kind  of  terrace, 
to  which  the  upper  story  of  the  skene  served  as  background." 

This  theory  owes  its  origin  to  Dorpfeld  (see  note  188).  It 
was  hinted  at  by  Reisch  in  his  review  of  Miiller's  BiXhnenalter- 
thumer,-°^  but  was,  I  believe,  first  clearly  stated  by  Kawerau,-"* 
and  was  expounded  at  length  by  Dorpfeld  himself  and  by  his  col- 
laborator Reisch  in  the  pages  of  Das  griechische  Theater  (1896). -'^^ 

But  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  statement  of  the  theory  in  Das 
griechische  Theater  differs  in  certain  important  particulars  from 

202  Op.  cit.  (see  note  168),  I,  pp.  130,  131. 

203  Zeitschr.f.  Oester.  Gymnasien  (1887),  270  ff. 

204  In  his  article  on  "  Theatergebaude  ' "  in  Banmeister'.s  Dentmdle,  III  (1889), 
1734  ;  also  brieiiy  by  Dorpfeld  himself  in  his  review  of  Haigh's  Attic  Theatre, 
Berl.  phil.  Wochenschr.,  X  (1890).  4()(i.  It  should  be  noted  that  Hiipken's 
theory  of  the  p roskenion,  which  is  sometimes  linked  with  Dorpfeld\s,  was  essen- 
tially different  (De  Theatro  Attico,  1884). 

205  It  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to  add  that  the  theory  lias  been  adopted  by  many 
scholar-s.  But  the  variou.s  publications  which  have  appeared  since  1890,  incluii- 
ing  annotated  texts,  state  the  theory  in  a  variety  of  ways  and  sometimes  exhibit 
genuine  confusion.  The  most  recent  statement  is  found  in  Flickinger's  The 
Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1918),  pp.  58,  59,  68,  235,  285,  etc.  "  His  dis- 
cussion of  the  relation  of  the  proskenion  to  the  logeion  (pp.  58  ff.)  is  particularly 
commendable. 


92  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

that  given  by  Mantzius  and  by  many  other  scholars  since  the 
year  1890.  The  authors  employ  the  word  proskenion  in  a  generic 
sense.  They  refer  to  it,  indeed,  as  a  "decorative  wall"  (Schmuck- 
wand),2°^  but  make  it  clear  that  in  their  judgment  the  stereotyped 
form  consisting  of  columns  or  posts  with  intervening  panels 
developed  only  gradually  and  did  not  prevail  until  the  Hellenistic 
period.  Thus  in  his  discussion  of  the  Hellenistic  theater  Dorpfeld 
says  (p.  381)  :  "In  conclusion,  we  should  not  forget  that  the  scene- 
buildings  (die  Skenen)  and  the  proskenia  [note  the  plural]  at  first 
actually  resembled  those  structures  which  they  were  meant  to 
represent.  Only  gradually  did  they  develop  into  a  conventional 
decorative  screen  (aber  allmahlich  zu  einer  typischen  Schmuck- 
wand  wurden),  which  bore  little  resemblance  to  simple  dwelling 
houses."  Again  he  writes  (p.  376)  :  "As  in  the  earlier  period, 
so  also  in  the  fourth  century,  the  background  required  was  some- 
times a  palace,  sometimes  a  house ;  or  again  it  was  a  temple,  or 
a  cave,  or  any  other  suitable  setting.  These  different  decorative 
arrangements  must  have  been  provided  by  means  of  movable 
proskenia  of  wholly  different  forms  (Diese  verschiedenen  De- 
korationen  mussten  durch  bewegliche  Proskenien  von  ganz 
verschiedener  Form  gebildet  werden)."  And  again  with  reference 
to  the  fourth-century  theater  (p.  70):  "What  form  the  pro- 
skenion had  in  the  different  dramas  must  be  gathered  from  the 
plays  themselves.  The  remains  of  the  theater  [of  Lycurgus] 
furnish  no  clue.  But  no  one  can  deny  that  the  large  space 
[inclosed  by  the  paraskenia],  which  was  nearly  twenty-one  meters 
long  by  about   five  meters   deep,  was  of   sufficient  size  to   make 

206  pp.  .373.  .376.  .377.  380,  381.  Compare  Dorpfeld.  JahrJu  d.  arch.  Inst.,  XVI 
(1901).  23  :  '^  rroskenion  ursprun^lieh  eine  Vorskene,  also  eine  vor  der  Skene 
befindliche  Dekoration  "  ;  also  Athenische  Mittheilunijen,  XXVIII  (1903),  390  : 
"Proskenion  eine  Vorskene,  eine  Schmnckwand  (Dekoration)  bedeutet." 

This  definition  has  been  repeatedly  qnestioned  ;  so  recently  by  Fiechter,  op. 
cit.  (see  note  174),  p.  -50,  note  3  :  "  YlpoaKrjviov  kann  nirht  Vorskene  heissen.  .  .  . 
In  Proskenion  steckt  ein  Diminutivum  :  ffKrjvwv.  Proskenion  ist  also  eine  kleine 
Skene  vor  der  Skene,  eben  ein  Vorbau."  See  also  p.  32  :  "So  war  sie  [die 
Proskenionwand]  auch  nicht  des  dekorativen  Elementes  wegen  errichtet."  See 
below,  p.  109. 


HOW   WERE    THE    CHANGES   EFFECTED  ?  93 

possible  the  erection  of  a  portico  of  a  temple,  or  several  houses, 
or  a  towered  citadel,  or  the  front  of  a  palace."  And  finally 
(p.  377),  the  form  of  proskenion  which  consisted  of  columns  and 
panels  would  be  suitable  for  representing  only  a  house  or  a 
palace.  "All  other  structures  (Dekorationen)  of  this  earher 
period  [that  is,  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries],  for  example,  a 
temple  or  a  citadel,  would  have  had  to  be  of  different  dimensions 
and  various  forms,  although  erected  on  the  same  spot  (werden 
zw^ar  an  derselben  Stelle,  aber  in  anderen  Abmessungen  und  mit 
veriinderten  Kunstformen  ausgefiihrt  worden  sein)." 

These  different  varieties  included  not  only  the  more  substan- 
tial proskenia  (grossere  Proskenien)  in  the  form  of  porticos  and 
other  architectural  structures,  but  decorative  screens  as  well, 
resembUng  curtains  or  flats. ^"^ 

These  are  the  more  striking  passages  in  which  the  authors 
of  Das  griechische  Theater  present  their  theory  of  the  proskefiion. 
It  is,  in  brief,  that  from  an  early  variety  of  types  there  gradually 
emerged  the  conventional  proskenion  of  the  Hellenistic  theater. 
This  form  was  introduced  originally  to  represent  a  palace  or  a 
house  and  became  the  prevailing  type  only  when  the  scenic  re- 
quirements became  stereotyped.  And  as  recently  as  the  year 
1915,  Dorpfeld  has  restated  the  doctrine  in  substantially  the 
same   language.™^  s 

But  why  the  Greeks  should  have  adopted  a  decorative  screen 
some  sixty  feet  in  length  and  twelve  or  thirteen  feet  high  and 
adorned  with  columns  to  represent  a  house  or  similar  building, 
whereas  all  other  structures  were  differently  and  more  realistically 
represented,  neither  Dorpfeld  nor  any  of  his  followers  has  ever 

207  Page  377  :  "  aus  grossen,  iiur  geinalten  .Schmuckwanden  "  ;  "  eine  vor- 
haiigartige  Decorationswand  "  ;  page  214:  "Es  liegt  iiahe  anzunehnien,  dass 
die  Vorderwand  des  Proskenion  manchmal  nur  aus  bemalten,  in  Rahman  ge- 
spannten  Zeug  bestand." 

208  Jahrh.  d.  arch.  Inst.  Anz.  XXX  CIOIS),  98.  A  modification  of  this  theory 
is  presented  by  Noack  (op.  cit.,  pp.  44  ff.).  According  to  this  autlior  the  pro- 
skenion  developed  from  scenic  representations  of  the  Vorlialleof  a  Ti'lesterion  or 
Hall  of  Initiation-ceremonies. 


94  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

been  able  to  show.  The  hypothesis  constitutes  one  of  the  weak 
points  in  Dorpf eld's  reconstruction  of  the  theater,  and  it  has  been 
repeatedly  and  vigorously  attacked.-"^  Only  occasionally  does 
one  find  the  theory  stated  in  its  original  form ;  ^^^  more  commonly 
is  it  assumed  that  the  columnated  proskenion  was  adopted  before 
the  close  of  the  fifth  century.^^^  But  no  one,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
has  ever  offered  a  convincing  explanation  of  the  origin  of  this 
decorative  scheme.  Before  grappling  with  this  problem,  however, 
we  must  turn  aside  to  consider  briefly  one  of  the  earlier  types 
of  proskenia  postulated  by  Dorpf  eld. 

209  As  by  Puelistein,  Die  griechL<iGhe  Bi'thne  (1901),  pp.  22  ff.  ;  Haigh-Pickard- 
Cambridge,  The  Attic  Theatre,  pp.  152,  153  ;  Fiechter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  32  ff. 

210  As  by  Bodensteiner,  Das  antike  Theater  (1902),  p.  12. 

211  So  most  recently  Flickiiiger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  58,  68,  235,  237,  who  assigns  its 
introduction  to  the  years  430-425  b.c. 


VII 
THE  ALLEGED  PROTHYRON  OF  THE  VASE-PAINTINGS 

Among  the  various  proskenia  which  Dorpfeld  assumes  were 
in  use  during  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries  should  doubtless 
be  included  the  columned  porch,  with  stylobate,  entablature  and 
gable,  which  forms  a  prominent  feature  of  Dorpfeld's  well  known 
reconstruction  of  the  scene-building  in  the  fifth  century  (Fig. 
23).-^-  A  structure  of  this  sort,  it  is  supposed,  would  serve  as  a 
realistic  representation  of  a  palace  or  a  temple  and  would  he 
particularly  useful  in  the  case  of  portico-scenes  (p.  55),  while 
its  stylobate  would  provide  a  convenient,  though  low,  platform 
which  could  be  used  in  lieu  of  a  stage. 

The  archaeological  argument  adduced  by  Dorpfeld  in  support 
of  the  hypothesis  that  the  skene  was  sometimes  so  adorned  may  be 
briefly  summarized  as  follows.  Many  Greek  vase-paintings 
depict  scenes  that  appear  to  have  been  inspired  by  the  contem- 
porary drama.  These  fall  into  several  distinct  groups,  the  ma- 
jority of  which  were  executed  in  southern  Italy  during  the  fourth 
and  third  centuries.  Some  of  these  paintings  reflect  unmistak- 
ably the  influence  of  Euripidean  tragedy  and  are  characterized  in 
several  instances  by  the  presence  of  a  small,  columned  structure 
or  aedicula,  which  apparently  represents  a  palace  (Figs.  24,  27- 
29).  But  in  the  fourth  century  palaces  of  this  type  could  hardly 
be  found  elsewhere  than  in  the  theater.  Some  of  the  pictures 
indeed  in  which  these  buildings  occur  clearly  show  in  other  respects 
the  influence  of  the  drama  and  dramatic  conventions,  and  the 

212  Das  griechische  Theater,  tig.  93,  p.  .373.  It  is  reproduced  in  color  by 
Cybulski  (Tabulae  quibus  Antl(juitate,H  Graecae  et  Romanae  illustrantur,  12)  ; 
also  by  Durm  (Die  Baukunst  der  Griechen  (ed.  3,  1910),  p.  470),  butwithout 
approbation. 

95 


[96] 


THE  ALLEGED  PROTHYRON  OF  THE  VASE-PAINTINGS     97 

idea  of  placing  the  leading  characters  within  the  building  in  these 
paintings  may  also  have  been  suggested  by  the  tragic  perform- 
ances, many  of  whose  scenes  were  enacted  in  the  colonnade  (Vor- 
halle)  of  the  palace.  We  may  assume  therefore  that  these  little 
structures  are  conventionalized  reproductions  of  a  prothyron  or 
portico  erected  before  the  central  portion  of  the  scene-building. 
And  if  a  proskenion  of  this  description  was  employed  in  the  fourth 
century,  it  follows  a  fortiori  that  it  must  have  been  in  common 
use  in  the  preceding  century  also.-^'' 

Relying  on  this  course  of  reasoning  Dorpfeld  restores  the  scene- 
building  with  a  projecting  porch  whose  floor  is  elevated  above  the 
level  of  the  orchestra  (Fig.  23) ;  while  his  collaborator  Reisch 
boldly  makes  this  restoration  the  basis  for  the  interpretation  of 
certain  passages  in  the  fifth-century  drama.  But  the  argument 
when  tested  fails  to  convince.  Its  validity  has  often  been  ques- 
tioned.^^*     But    because    it    has  exercised    a   not    inconsiderable 

213  Das  grierhische  Theater,  p.  208  (Reisch)  :  "Aiif  Vaseiil)ildern  sehen  wir 
solche  Vorpliitze,  die  lun  eine  Stiife  iiber  den  davorliegeiiden  Platz  erhoht  und 
von  einem  weit  vorspringenden  Thlirdach  tiberdeckt  siiid.  Almliclie  Prothyra 
wird  man  bei  den  Theaterhausern  voraussetzen  dlirfen  ;  die  Stufe  des  Prothyron 
gab  dem  SchaiLspieler  Gelegenlieit,  wo  es  vorteilliaft  erschien,  einen  erhohten 
Standplatz  zu  gewinnen."  Il)id.,  p.  309  (Dfirpfeld)  :  "  Diese  Sanlenge- 
sclimiickten  Bauten  stellen  .  .  .  durehweg  Paliiste  vor,  und  die  Vorbilder  fiir 
solche,  niit  Giebeln  ausgestattete  Palaste  wird  man  im  IV.  Jahrhundert  schwer- 
Uch  anderswo  als  hn  Theater  suchen  durfeii."  Page  310:  '•  Wie  wenig  den 
Malern  dabei  an  einer  getreuen  Wiedergabe  eines  wirklichen  Vorbildes  gelegen 
war,  geht  schon  daraus  hervor,  dass  sie  die  Sanlenhalle  als  eine  freistehende, 
audi  riickwarts  offene  Halle  zeichnen,  ohne  einen  hinteren  Ban  oder  audi  niu" 
eine  Hinterwand  anzugeben,  .so  dass  es  unklar  Ijleilit,  ob  sie  die  dargestellten 
Vorgange  wirklich  in  der  Vorhalle  oder  im  Innern  des  Palastes  gedacht  wissen 
wollten.  Dennoch  darf  man  wohl  die  schlanke  leichte  Bauart  dieser  Hallen 
auf  die  Holzarchitektur  der  Proskenionbauten  zurlickfiihren  und  ihre  kleinen 
Abmessungen  daraus  erklai-en,  dass  die  2-4  sauligen  Hallen  vor  dem  Mittelthor 
des  Theaterpalastes  als  nachstes  Vorbild  gedient  liaben." 

214  As,  for  example,  by  Fiechter,  Die  baugeschichtliche  Entwickliing  des  antiken 
Theaters  (1914),  p.  42  :  "Ob  jene  Hallen  oder  aediculae  auf  Vasenbildern  des 
IV.  Jahrhunderts  mit  Dorpfeld-Reisch,  a.  O.  S.  308,  mitdem  Theater  in  Verbind- 
ung  zu  bringen  sinfl,  bleilit  unsicher.  (4ewiss  konnen  ahnliche  Dekorationen 
im  Drama  des  IV.  Jahrhunderts  vor  die  Skene  gestellt  worden  sein,  aber  aus 
■diesern  Bildern  ist  das  nicht  zu  entnehmen.''  Flickinger  {The  Greek  Theater 
and  its  Drama,  1918,  p.  237)  is  less  positive.  He  remarks  :  "  But  perhaps  these 
paintings  are  only  conventionalized  representations  of  the  proscenium  colonnade 
itself.  In  any  case  it  is  important  to  observe  that  no  background  corresponding 
to  the  scene-buildinu'  is  indicated  on  the  vases." 


98  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

influence  upon  the  discussions  of  the  proskeniofi,-^^  and  because  it 
has  in  recent  years  been  brought  again  to  Hfe  and  utiUzed,  as  it 
was  by  Reisch,  to  interpret  certain  scenes  in  the  drama  of  the 
fifth  century,-'^  it  still  challenges  attention.  If  the  columned 
structures  of  these  paintings  actually  represent  prothijra,  then 
Dorpfeld's  proposed  reconstruction  may  be  regarded  as  reasonable. 
But  until  more  cogent  arguments  shall  have  been  advanced  in 
substantiation  of  this  hypothesis  the  persistent  application  of  the 
term  "portico"  to  these  buildings  amounts  to  a  petitio  principii. 
And  until  a  connection  with  the  scene-building  shall  have  been 
proved  beyond  a  peradventure  the  value  of  these  pictures  as 
evidence  for  the  scenic  arrangements  in  the  theater  amounts  to 
nothing. 

Four  vases  in  particular  are  cited.  These  are  the  Medea-vase 
at  Munich,  the  Antigone-vase  at  Ruvo,  and  the  Meleager-vase 
and  the  Archemorus-vase  at  Naples.  Of  these  the  first  is  the 
most  elaborate  and  the  most  beautiful  (Fig.  24).-^'^  It  represents 
a  structure  consisting  of  entablature  and  gable  supported  by  six 
tall  and  slender  Ionic  columns  resting  on  a  stylobate  of  two  steps. 
Within  the  building  Creusa  is  portrayed  writhing  upon  a  throne, 

21-''  It  is  responsible,  I  believe,  for  tlie  assumption  that  the  floor  of  the  pro- 
skenion  was  elevated  a  step  or  two  above  the  level  of  the  orchestra  (see  p.  39). 

216  As  by  Rees,  "The  Function  of  the  llpbdvpov  in  the  Production  of  Greek 
Plays,"  Class.  Phil..,  X  (1915),  124  ff.  He  assumes  without  argument  that  the 
buildings  represent  vestibules;  thus  (p.  12.5)  :  "The  portico  as  portrayed  on 
the  vases  ...'';  "The  vestibule  on  the  Naples  vase  .  .  .  "  ;  "A  similar  porch  is 
found  .  .  ."  ;  "Three  persons  are  standing  inside  the  vestibule."  "It  would 
be  hazardous  to  lay  too  much  emphasis  ui)on  the  portrayal  of  the  prothyron  in 
these  (Pompeian)  wall-paintings  and  on  the  vases.  .  .  .  The  .representations 
are  no  doubt  conventionalized.  But  it  seems  certain  that  the  somewhat  con- 
ventionalized portido  of  these  paintings  was  modeled  after  the  actual  stage- 
building." 

217  It  was  found  at  Canosa,  and  has  been  discussed  by  Jahn,  Arch.  Zeit,  V 
(1847),  33  ff.,  and  XXV  (18G7),  pp.  58  ff.  ;  Dilthey,  VjuZ.  XXXIII  (1875), 
f)8,  09  ;  Robert,  Bild  und  Lied.,  (1881),  pp.  37  ff.  ;  Vogel,  Scenen  euripideischer 
Tru(/o(lien  in  griechischen  Vasem/erndlden  (1886),  pp.  146  ff.  ;  Baumeister, 
Denkmdler,  II  (1887),  p.  903  ;  Huddilston,  Greek  Tragedy  in  the  Light  of  Vase 
Pahitings  (1898),  pp.  144  ff.  ;  Furtwangler  und  Reichhold,  Griechische  Vasen- 
nuilerei.,  Ser.  2  (1909),  pp.  161  ff.  ;  Durrbach  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  Bict.  des 
antiq.  grec.  et  rom.,  art.  "  Medea  "  ;  Cook,  Zeus  (1914),  pp.  251,  252;  and  many 
others. 


THE  ALLEGED  PROTHYRON  OF  THE  VASE-PAINTINGS     99 

while  beside  her  and  partially  supporting  her  stands  her  aged 
father  Creon.  From  the  right  and  with  one  foot  already  on  the 
stylobate  approaches  in  haste  her  brother  Hippotes  wearing 
chlamys  and  petasos;  from  the  left  an  elderly  woman,  designated 
as  Merope,  rushes  toward  the  building  in  evident  alarm.  Other 
figures  and  objects  complete  the  picture.  That  the  painting 
was  directly  inspired  by  tragedy  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  but  what 
of  the  building?  Does  it  represent  portico  or  palace  itself? 
Surely  the  latter  is  the  more  reasonable,  as  it  is  also  the  more 
common,  explanation  and  it  is  strongly  supported  by  a  compari- 
son with  the  sepulchral  vase-paintings  which  depict,  probably 
under  Orphic  influence,  the  sterner  aspects  of  life  in  the  under- 
world (c/.  Fig.  25).-^^  These  Hades- vases  constitute  an  important 
group,  and  the  palace  of  Pluto  and  Persephone,  which  regularly 
occupies  the  center  of  the  composition,  bears  a  striking  resemblance 
not  only  to  that  of  the  Medea-vase  but  to  many  of  the  heroa 
(shrines)  and  other  structures  depicted  on  both  vases  and  tomb- 
stones. 

The  relations  of  these  several  types  to  one  another  have  as 
yet  not  been  fully  determined,^^^  but  to  assume,  as  we  should  be 
obliged  to  do  on  Dorpfeld's  hypothesis,  that  the  palace  of  the 
Hades-vases  was  copied  from  the  scene-building  of  the  theater 

218  The  series  is  published  in  the  Wiener  Vorlegebldtter,  Ser.  E,  Taf.  1-7.  See 
also  Rayet  et  Collignon,  Uistoire  de  la  ceramique  (jrecque  (1888),  pp.  305  ff.  ; 
Winkler,  "  Unter-italische  Unterweltsdarstellungen, "  Breslauer  Phil.  Abh., 
Ill,  Ileft  5  (1888);  Baumeister,  Benkmaler,  III  (1889),  art.  "  Unterwelt "  ; 
DiuTbach,  art.  "Inferi  "  in  Darembero-Saglio,  op.  cit.;  Furtwangler-Reichhold, 
op.  cit.,  Ser.  1  (1904),  pp.  47  &. 

Among  the  figures  (Fig.  25)  one  recognizes,  in  addition  to  Pluto  and  Per- 
sephone, Orpheus  with  liis  lyre,  Sisyphus  driven  to  his  task  by  a  Fury,  Hermes, 
Heracles  with  the  dog  Cerberus,  Tantalus  and  the  overhanging  rock,  and  the 
three  judges  of  the  dead. 

219  As  Wheeler  remarks  (Fowler  and  Wheeler,  Greek  Archaeology  (1909), 
p.  512)  :  "The  Greek  vases  of  southern  Italy  have  not  yet  received  as  much 
scientific  study  as  has  been  given  to  many  of  the  earlier  styles.  .  .  .  The  con- 
ditions therefore  of  their  origin  and  development  are  less  thoroughly  known.'' 
Compare  Robert,  Hermes,  XXXVI  (1901).  377:  "und  dieses  [i.e.  the  bviild- 
ing  on  the  Medea-vase,  etc.  ]  selbst  nach  dem  Muster  tarentinischer  Grabdenk- 
maler  gebildet  ist ;  es  reprasentirt  zwar  die  Skene,  aber  esbildet  sie  nicht  nach." 
Compare  also  Hoeber,  Griechische  Vasen  (1909),  pp.  124,  125. 


[100] 


THE  ALLEGED  FROTHY  RON  OF  THE  VASE-PAINTINGS     101 

would  be  hazardous,  if  not  indeed  actually  perverse.  Herein 
indeed  lies  the  fundamental  weakness  in  Dorpfeld's  argument. 
It  consists  in  a  neglect  of  the  larger  problem  of  the  origin  of  this 
architectural  feature  as  it  affects  all  of  these  different  groups  of 
vases.  He  selects  a  small  number  of  paintings  and  treats  them 
as  an  insulated  genre  —  a  method  that  surely  invites  disaster. 
This  becomes  even  more  obvious  when  we  compare  another  series 
of  pictures  in  which  the  building  represents  a  temple,  as  in  the 
numerous  Iphigenia-vases.  To  seek  the  prototype  of  the  temple 
in  the  theater  would  be  both  gratuitous  and  absurd,  as  Dorpfeld 
himself  recognized  (p.  310),  and  yet  in  some  instances  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  temple  is  virtually  identical  with  that  of  the 
palace.  The  artists'  copybook  is  again  in  evidence  (cf.  Fig.  26).^^" 
Indeed  a  study  of  a  score  or  more  of  the  vase-paintings,  in  which 
occur  representations  of  palaces,  temples  and  the  like,  forces  one 
to  the  conclusion  that  none  of  these  reproduces  in  any  dependable 
manner  the  architectural  arrangements  of  the  scene-building. 
The  Medea-vase  therefore  cannot  be  admitted  as  evidence  of  a 
projecting  portico  before  the  skene  —  a  conclusion  that  appears 
to  be  reenforced  by  the  further  consideration  that  the  scene 
in  question,  the  agony  and  death  of  Creusa,  was  in  all  probability 
not  enacted  in  the  presence  of  the  audience,  that  is  in  the  vestibule, 
but  took  place  within  the  palace  itself.-^ 

The  interpretation  of  the  Antigone-vase  (Fig.  27)  --'-  is  still  more 

220  The  temple  appears  in  many  different  forms;  see  Overbeck,  Die  Bildwerke 
zurii,  thehischen  und  troischen  Ileldenkrein  (1857),  Taf.  30  ;  Vogel,  up.  cit.,  pp. 
08  ff.  ;  Iluddilston,  op.  cit.,  fii,^s.  18-'J1.  Figm-e  26  {Monumenti  deW  Instituto, 
VI,  60)  is  from  an  amphora  which  is  (or  was)  in  tlie  Hermitage  Museum  at 
Petrograd. 

221  Dorpfeld  (p.  .307)  parries  this  objection.  I  say  "in  all  probability,'"  for 
unfortunately  we  do  not  know  whether  the  painting  was  inspired  by  the  Medea 
of  Euripides  or  by  that  of  some  later  poet.  For  a  partial  bibliography  of  this 
controversy,  see  note  217. 

222  Heydemann,  Ueber  eine  nacheuripideische  Trag'ddie  (1868)  ;  Mon.  delV 
Inst.,  X,  Taf.  26-27  ;  Vocel,  op.  cit.  (note  217),  pp.  50  ff.  ;  Baumeister, 
Denkmdler,  I  (1885),  84;  'Kliigmann,  Ann.  delV  hM.  Arch.  (1876),  173  ff.  ; 
Harrison,    Themis  (1912),  pp.  376,  377.     Heracles,  Antigone,  Haemon,  Creou 


102 


THE    GREEK   THEATER 


difficult.  It  is  generally  assumed  that  the  building  represents  a 
palace  ;  but  this  is  far  from  certain.  Within  the  structure  stands 
Heracles,  and  his  name  appears  in  large  letters  upon  the  architrave. 
This  is  most  puzzling.  If  Heracles  was  the  deus  ex  machina,  his 
appearance  within  the  building  is  not  easy  to  explain ;  Avhile  on 
the  other  hand  he  cannot  have  been  the  protagonist  in  any  An- 
tigone, and  for  this  reason  assigned  to  a  central  position  in  the 


Fig.  27.  —  Vase-Painting  from  the  Antigone-Vase  at  Ruvo. 

composition.  Possibly  the  artist  drew  upon  other  sources  than 
the  drama  for  this  portion  of  his  picture  —  an  explanation  adopted 
by  Miss  Harrison,  who  resolves  the  mystery  by  calling  the  struc- 
ture an  Heracleum  or  heroon  of  Heracles : 

In  the  saga  he  [Heracles],  for  some  reason  not  given,  asks  Creon  a  favor. 
He  is  no  daimon  ;  he  is  just  one  mortal  of  royal  race  asking  a  boon  of  another. 
But  art  is  more  conservative.  Heracles  was  the  hero  of  Thebes  and  on  the 
amphora  his  heroon,  marked  by  his  name,  bulks  proportionately  large.  He, 
not  Creon,  for  all  Creon's  kingly  sceptre,  is  the  Hero  to  be  intreated.  It  is 
a  strange  instructive  fusion  and  confusion  of  two  strata  of  thinking. ^^^ 


and  Ismene  are  named  ;  the  other  figures  are  uncertain.  The  scene  appears  to 
be  borrowed  from  a  lest  drama  by  an  unknown  poet,  the  plot  of  which  is 
preserved  by  Hyginus  (Fab.  72). 

223  Themis  (1912),  p.  377. 


[103] 


104  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

The  structures  pictured  on  the  Archemorus-vase  (Fig.  28)  ^^ 
and  on  the  Meleager-vase  (Fig.  29)  ^^  are  less  ornate.  The  latter 
bears  a  slight  resemblance  to  the  conventional  proskenion,^^^  but 
the  columns  at  the  rear  render  this  connection  dubious.  Neither 
of  these  paintings,  however,  contributes  any  dependable  informa- 
tion regarding  the  appearance  of  the  scene-building.  Indeed 
it  is  not  absolutely  certain  that  either  of  them  was  directly  inspired 
by  the  drama.  And  when  we  reflect  that  in  Greek  houses  the 
prothyron  was  regularly  a  space  or  room  extending  inward  from 
the  front  wall  rather  than  outward  toward  the  street  ^-^  the  theory 
that  in  the  early  theater  a  projecting  portico  was  sometimes 
erected  before  the  skene  appears  to  lose  every  vestige  of  support. 

In  conclusion  one  other  ancient  picture  deserves  to  be  mentioned. 
This  is  the  beautiful  painting  representing  a  scene  from  the  sad 
stor}^  of  Niobe  and  her  children  (Fig.  30),--^  the  original  of  which 
in  Robert's  opinion  was  the  work  of  an  Athenian  artist  of  the 
fifth  century.  The  building,  which  is  apparently  of  unusual 
construction,  Robert  at  first  explained  in  accordance  with  Dorp- 
feld's  restoration  of  the  scene-building ;  but  later  he  withdrew  this 

224  Vogel,  op.  cit.  (note  217),  pp.  99  ff.  ;  Baumeister,  op.  cit.,  I,  114  ;  Gerhard, 
"  ArchemorosunddieHesperiden,"  Gesammelte  Ahhandlungen,!,  5  ;  Decharme, 
Euripides  and  the  Spirit  of  his  Dramas;  translated  by  Loeb  (19U5),  p.  198. 

At  the  bottom  of  the  picture  is  the  body  of  Archemorus  lying  on  the  bier  ; 
an  elderly  woman  approaches  to  place  a  wreath  _npon  his  head.  Above  in  the 
center  stands  his  grief -stricken  mother  E  urydice.  '  On  her  right  appears  Hypsipyle 
in  an  attitude  of  supplication  ;  on  her  left,  Amphiaraus,  who  seems  to  be  inter- 
ceding for  the  unhappy  Hypsipyle. 

225  Jahn,  Archaeologische  Zeitung,  1867,  33  ff.,  Tafel  220;  Vogel,  op.  cit., 
pp.  80  ff.  ;  Engelmann,  Archaeologische  Studien  zu  den  Tragikern  (1900), 
pp.  80  ff.  Supported  by  his  sister  Deianira  and  his  half-brother  Tydeus,  Meleager 
sinks  in  death  upon  a  bed. 

226  So  Engelmann,  Arch.  Stud.,  p.  80. 

227  See  Guhl-Koner,  Leben  der  Griechen  und  Bonier,  ed.  6,  1893,  194  ;  Da- 
remberg-Saglio,  op.  cit.,  art.  "  Domus,"  p.  34(3. 

228  The  painting  is  upon  marble  and  was  found  at  Pompeii  in  the  year  1872. 
The  predominating  colors  are  gold  and  a  delicate  shade  of  violet.  For  Robert's 
disciLssion  of  this  picture  see  J/ernies,  XXX VI  (1901),  308  fl. ,  Gottingische  Ge- 
lehrte  Anzeigen,  CLXIV  (1902),  430,  and  Ilallisches  Winckelmannsprogramm, 
no.  24  (1903).  Figure  30  is  a  pliotograph  of  the  colored  reproduction  in  the  ar- 
ticle last  mentioned  ;  reference  may  be  made  to  this  article  for  additional  biblio- 
graphical material. 


[105] 


106  .  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

conjecture  and  interpreted  the  structure  rather  as  a  representation 
of  a  proskenion  of  the  more  normal  type.--^  But  so  far  as  I  am 
aware  this  interpretation  has  not  been  received  with  favor.  Cer- 
tainly his  suggestion  that  the  original  of  this  painting  was  a 
'' Votivbild"  dedicated  in  commemoration  of  the  Niobe  of  Sopho- 
cles rests  upon  a  series  of  unsubstantiated  hypotheses. ^^"^ 

229  "Jetzt  glaiibe  ich  richtiger  zu  urteileii,  wenn  ich  die  Saulenreihe  als  das 
Proskenion,  die  AVand  daliinter  aber  als  die  Fassade  der  Skene  betraclite.  Wir 
haben  also  liier  das  alteste  Saulenproskenion  leibhaftig  vor  uns."  ("Niobe," 
Hallisches  Winekeimannsproyramm,  no.  24,  p.  (5.) 

230  The  relation  of  the  Pompeian  wall  paintings  to  the  Greek  theater  is  prob- 
lematic, but  certainly  these  throw  no  light  upon  the  architecture  of  the  scene- 
building  in  the  fifth  century.  Their  bearing  upon  the  problem  of  the  later  skene 
has  been  discussed  most  recently  by  Fiechter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  42  ff. 


VIII  ' 

THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PROSKENION 

The  origin  of  the  proskenion  is  a  problem  of  basic  importance. 
Although  often  waved  lightly  aside,  it  invariably  rechallenges 
attention,  for  its  solution  is  essential  to  a  consistent  and  satis- 
factory account  of  the  development  of  the  scene-building.  Con- 
sideration of  this  problem  therefore  will  form  a  fitting  conclusion 
to  this  brief  study  of  the  Greek  theater  of  the  fifth  century.  But 
we  should  remember  that  at  the  best  any  attempt  to  restore  the 
scene-building  and  to  trace  its  history  during  the  pre-Lycurgean 
period  must  be  based  largely  on  conjecture.  Fortunately,  how- 
ever, a  few  factors  are  loiowTi,  while  others  may  be  assumed  with 
a  reasonable  degree  of  assurance. 

As  was  shown  in  chapter  3  (Fig.  20),  the  inner  sides  of  the 
paraskenia  of  the  fourth-century  scene-building  and  the  wall  con- 
necting them  at  the  rear  exactly  fit  the  circle  of  the  old  terrace 
and  the  north-south  diameter  of  the  remaining  portion  of  this 
terrace  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  fourth-century  orchestra.  From 
these  facts  the  inferences  were  drawn  that  before  the  position  of 
the  theater  was  moved  the  scene-building  had  been  erected  both 
on  and  about  the  orchestra-terrace,  and  that  further  in  its  essen- 
tial features  it  had  served  as  the  model  for  the  building  which 
later  replaced  it.  This  conclusion  is  supported  by  a  study  of  the 
contemporary  drama.  For,  as  we  saw  in  chapter  4,  the  skene, 
although  doubtless  at  first  a  small  and  flimsy  structure  (cf.  a-Krjvr] 
"hut,"  "booth")  came  to  be,  long  before  the  close  of  the  fifth 
century,  a  building  of  considerable  substantialness  and  in  part 
two  stories  in  height.  In  this  same  chapter,  moreover,  it  was 
pointed  out  that  when  the  scene-building  represented  a  house  or 

107 


108  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

temple  it  was  not  customary  to  place  a  flight  of  steps  before  the 
door ;  the  threshold  was  virtually  on  a  level  with  the  orchestra. 
And  it  was  shown  further  that  some  plays  required  for  their 
presentation  a  portico  of  appreciable  size.  The  assumption  that 
this  was  indicated  merely  by  painting  was  rejected  as  untenable, 
while  the  conjecture  that  it  extended  outward  toward  the  orches- 
tra was  shown  (chap.  7)  to  rest  upon  evidence  of  questionable 
validit3^  Probably  rather  it  was  set  i7ito  the  building  after 
the  manner  familiar  in  ordinary  Greek  houses. 

Again,  as  was  shown  in  chapter  5,  the  daily  program  was  of 
extraordinary  length  and  changes  of  the  set  were  not  infrequently 
demanded,  especially  between  plays.  The  legitimate  inference 
is  that  the  scenic  arrangements  were  simple  and  of  such  a  sort 
that  the  setting  could  be  easily  and  quickly  altered.  And  yet, 
as  we  saw,  there  is  no  evidence  for  the  use  in  the  fifth  century 
of  large  painted  canvases  or  the  like,  whether  attached  to  the 
back  wall  or  placed  before  it  as  a  scaena  ductilis.  And  finally, 
we  know  that  in  the  Hellenistic  age  there  was  a  proskenion  con- 
sisting of  columns  (or  posts)  and  panels,  with  entablature  and 
platform  above,  and  we  have  seen  reasons  (chap.  2)  for  believing 
that  a  similar  structure  of  wood  was  in  use  as  early  at  least  as 
the  fourth  century.  If  this  be  granted,  it  is  perhaps  not  unreason- 
able to  conjecture  that  this  feature  of  the  Lycurgean  skene  origi- 
nated in  the  fifth  century  (p.  31). 

With  these  several  facts  and  assumptions  in  mind  let  us  inquire 
more  closely  into  the  purpose  and  the  origin  of  this  proskenion. 
To  the  first  of  these  questions  two  answers  have  been  proposed : 
the  proskenion  was  intended  to  serve  either  as  a  stage  or  as  a 
decorative  background.  The  second  portion  of  the  problem, 
that  concerning  the  origin  of  the  proskenion,  is  not  readily  sepa- 
rable from  the  first,  and  the  proposals  which  have  been  offered 
in  its  solution  may  be  treated  as  five  in  number,  to  which  I  would 
add  a  sixth  ;  but  the  lines  of  demarcation  are  not  in  all  cases 
clear-cut.     They  may  be  classified,  however,  somewhat  as  follows  : 


■  if  I 


»<r 


-4 


'I 


v::^  -^  ,> 


^^v 


;•■  / 


>•■, 


j:' 


"k 


4 


Fig.  30.  —  Niobe  and  hek  Daughter,  fkom  a  Painting  on  AIakble  Found  at 

Pompeii. 


THE    ORIGIN   OF   THE    PROSKENION  109 

I.  The  proskenion  was  a  stage.  It  was  about  twelve  or  thirteen 
feet  in  height  and  (1)  erected  some  time  in  the  fifth  century; 
or  (2)  imported  toward  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  from 
southern  Italy  or  elsewhere  to  replace  a  low  stage ;  or  (3)  resulted 
from  the  gradual  elevation  of  a  low  stage. 

II.  The  proskenion  was  a  background.  (4)  This  was  placed 
before  the  scene-building  at  first  in  many  different  forms,  but 
gradually  that  form  which  had  been  employed  to  represent  a  house 
or  palace  ^^^  became  the  normal  and  dominant  type ;  or  (5)  was 
arbitrarily  added  at  some  time  in  the  fifth  century  as  a  deco- 
rative screen  ;  or  finally  —  my  own  thesis  —  (6)  was  in  point  of 
origin  the  Aeschylean  skene  itself. 

The  first  of  these  views,  that  the  proskenion  was  erected  in 
the  fifth  century  as  a  stage,  is  the  old  doctrine,  which  overwhelmed 
by  the  smothering  effect  of  Dorpf eld's  discoveries  and  a  more 
searching  study  of  the  fifth-century  drama  burned  with  steadily 
decreasing  vigor  during  the  closing  decade  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  flared  up  for  a  moment  in  the  pages  of  Puchstein,-^-  and  at 
last  flickered  out.  The  second  theory  was  proposed  by  Fiechter.-^^ 
Wlien  the  proskenion  was  introduced,  say  about  the  year  319  b.c, 
and  placed  before  the  scene-building,  the  first  story  of  the  latter 
was  raised  and  became  henceforth  the  second  story  (cf.  Figs. 
11,  12)  —  an  evasive  and  tendenzios  hypothesis  which  it  is  impos- 
sible to  accept.  Fiechter's  attempt  to  trace  the  architectural 
development  of  the  theater  breaks  down  at  this  point,  as  it  does 
also  in  connection  with  the  paraskenia  (p.  13).  The  third  view, 
that  the  proskenion  resulted  from  the  gradual  elevation  of  a  low 
stage,  was  the  explanation  adopted  by  Bethe,  Haigh,  Gardner, 

231  Or,  as  Noack  holds,  the  Vorhalle  of  a  Telesterion  ;  see  note  208,  above. 

232  Die  yriechische  Buhne  (1901).  p.  1.39:  "die  altere  Btthne  [about  four 
meters  high;  cf.  pp.  1,36,  137]  van  Atlien  ebenso  alt  anziisetzen  wie  die  von 
Eretria,  in  das  4.  oder  5.  Jahrhundert  v.  Chr.,  jedenfalls  in  die  Zeit  vor  Lyl<urg.'" 
Puchstein  frankly  acknowledged  (p.  2)  that  he  eschewed  completely  the  evidence 
of  the  drama. 

233  jyie  baugeschichtliche  Entwicklung  des  antiken  Theaters  (1914),  p.  40. 


110  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

Furtwanglcr,  Verrall  and  many  others,-^^  but  as  it  was  based  upon 
the  erroneous  assumption  of  a  stage  in  the  fifth  century  (pp.  13, 
36  ff.),-  it,  hke  the  two  preceding  theories,  may  be  dismissed  from 
further  consideration. 

The  fourth  explanation  marks  an  advance  over  the  other  three, 
but,  as  was  pointed  out  in  chapters  6  and  7,  it  is  supported  in 
part  by  arguments  of  dubious  vahdit}-,  and  besides  contains 
certain  inherent  weaknesses  which  render  its  acceptance  difficult. 
The  fifth  theory,  that  the  proskenion  was  added  at  some  time  in 
the  fifth  century  as  a  decorative  screen,  has  many  adherents  ^^s 
and  in  my  judgment  is  nearest  the  truth.  It  appears  to  carry 
with  it,  however,  the  implicit  assumption  that  the  scene-building 
was  at  first  a  plain  and  unattractive  structure  whose  unsightliness, 
though  tolerated  for  a  season,  at  length  became  offensive  and  was 
accordingly  screened  from  view  by  means  of  a  decorative  colon- 
nade or  of  painted  scenery.^^^  And  surely  if  the  early  skene  was 
as  devoid  of  beauty  as  the  restorations  shown  in  figure  23  (without 
the  prothijron)  and  figures  12  and  22  suggest,  one  may  readily 
grant  the  need  of  a  decorative  front  to  conceal  its  ughness.  But 
that  in  the  days  of  Ictinus',  Callicrates,  Phidias  and  Agatharchus, 
the  Athenians  would  have  erected  a  scene-building  which,  no 
matter  how  small  it  may  have  been  or  how  temporary  in  character, 
was  not  well  proportioned  and  attractively  adorned  is  simply 
inconceivable.  Herein  lies  the  first  objection  to  the  theory  that 
the  proskenion  was  added  to  the  skene  as  a  decorative  screen. 
That  it  was  not  erected  before  the  scene-building,  but  was  in 
origin  the  scene-building  itself  may  seem  at  first  blush  a  startling 

23*  Most  recently  by  Petersen,  Die  griechische  Tragodie  als  Bild-  und  BUhn- 
enkunst  (1915),  p.  540. 

233  So  most  recently  Flickinger,  The  Greek  Theater  and  its  Drama  (1018), 
p.  58:  "The  front  of  the  scene-building  and  of  the  parascenia  came  to  be 
decorated  with  a  row  of  columns,"  etc.  ;  p.  68  :  "  At  about  the  same  time  [i.e. 
about  430  is.c]  a  proscenium  (also  of  wood)  was  erected  before  the  parascenia 
and  the  intermediate  front  of  the  scene-building,"  etc. 

23G  Compare  the  words  of  Mantzius  (p.  91),  who,  however,  apparently  believes 
that  the  proskenion  was  introduced  as  early  as  460  or  465  b.c,  and  those  of 
Ilaigh  and  Bolle  (pp.  89,  90).     See  also  Flickinger,  op.  cit,  p.  66. 


THE    ORIGIN   OF   THE    PROSKEMOX  111 

thesis,  but  it  is,  I  believe,  an  hypothesis  which  presents  a  consist- 
ent and  natural  explanation  of  the  development  of  the  skene, 
and  several  arguments  may  be  adduced  in  its  support. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  paraskenia.  We  have  seen  that  the 
inner  sides  of  the  fourth-centur}'  'paraskenia  together  with  the 
wall  connecting  them  at  the  rear  fit  the  old  orchestra-terrace, 
and  that  the  remaining  space  was  exactly  large  enough  to  receive 
a  circle  the  size  of  the  fourth-century  orchestra.  This  demon- 
strates that  before  the  theater  was  moved  nearer  to  the  slope  of 
the  Acropolis  there  had  been  erected  either  the  paraskenia  or 
a  structure  on  the  terrace  extending  probably  to  the  chord  AB 
(Fig.  20),  or  both.  It  is  my  belief  for  reasons  which  will  be 
explained  presently  that  both  had  been  erected.  The  original 
purpose  of  the  paraskenia  is  in  doubt,  but  it  is  generally  believed 
that  they  inclosed  either  a  stage  or  a  columnated  proskenion  P"^ 
The  theory,  however,  that  a  stage  occupied  this  space  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  unacceptable.  Only  two  alternatives  remain.  A 
structure  erected  on  the  terrace  must  have  been  either  proskenion 
or  skene  itself.  Moreover  it  is  clear  that  no  part  of  this  assumed 
structure  extended  beyond  the  chord  which  connects  the  northern 
ends  of  the  inner  walls  of  the  paraskenia,  as  shown  in  figures  20 
and  21.  Otherwise  the  orchestra-area,  and  also  the  size  of  the 
fourth-century  orchestra,  would  have  been  reduced. 

If  we  assume  that  the  structure  which  stood  on  the  orchestra- 
terrace  was  the  proskenion,  it  would  follow,  inasmuch  as  there 
could  not  have  been  a  proskenion  until  after  a  skene  had  been 

237  Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge,  The  Attic  Theatre  (1907),  132  :  "The  only  pos- 
sible purpose  of  the  deep  side-wings  was  to  inclose  a  stage  ";  cf.  p.  120.  Capps, 
Class,  liev.  IX  (1895),  136:  "The  only  explanation  that  can  be  offered  is 
that  they  were  used  for  the  support  of  the  wooden  proscenium."  See  also 
Dorpfeld  und  Reisch,  op.  rJt,  pp.  202,  371  ;  Puchstein,  op.  cit.,  p.  140;  Boden- 
steiner,  Das  antike  Theater  (1902),  p.  12;  Fiechter,  op.  cit,  p.  67;  etc.  For 
other  views  see  Christ,  S.-B.  d.  k.  b.  Akad.  d.  Wiss.,  Miinchen.  XXIV  (1894), 
42;  Bethe,  Prolegomena  (1896),  p.  207;  Robert,  Hermes,  XXXI  (1896),  557, 
and  Gottingisrhe  Gelehrte  Anzev/en,  CLXIV  (1902)  433,  434  ;  Holwerda,  Athen. 
Mitth.,  XXIII  (1898),  382  ff. ;  Streit,  Das  Theater  (1903),  pp.  10  ff. ;  Noack, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  44  ff.,  etc. 


112  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

erected,  that  the  latter  was  at  first  built  beyond  the  orchestra- 
terrace  and  tangent  thereto  in  the  place  "where  the  dechvity 
had  been,"  as  Dorpfeld,  Flickinger  and  others  suppose  (c/.  Fig. 
17).  To  this  hypothesis  there  are  at  least  two  cogent  objections. 
In  the  first  place,  the  erection  of  the  scene-building  in  this  position 
would  have  involved  greater  structural  difficulties  and  therefore 
greater  expense.  It  is  a  far  more  reasonable  conjecture  that  the 
Skene  was  originally  erected  on  the  floor  of  the  terrace  (cf.  Fig. 
196).  Again,  with  the  parodi  in  the  position  which  we  have 
shown  them  to  have  had  (Figs.  20,  21)  the  placing  of  the  scene- 
building  beyond  the  circle  of  the  terrace  at  a  distance  of  some 
thirteen  feet  back  of  the  line  of  the  parodi  would  have  increased 
the  difficulties  of  the  action.  The  distances  in  a  theater  the  size 
of  that  at  Athens  are  so  great  that  the  addition  of  even  so  small 
an  amount  as  twelve  or  thirteen  feet  would  occasion  increased 
embarrassment. 2^*  Considerations  of  economy  and  of  dramaturgy 
would  therefore,  I  believe,  have  led  the  Athenians  to  erect  the 
scene-building  as  near  as  possible  to  the  parodi  and  not  beyond 
the  terrace  where  the  declivity  had  been,  some  thirteen  feet  to 
the  rear.  Moreover  we  may  infer  from  the  fact  that  the  fourth- 
century  scene-building  so  exactly  fits  the  circle  of  the  terrace  that 
this  early  skene  extended  from  parodus  to  parodus  ;  in  other  words 
that  its  front  wall  formed  a  chord  {AB,  Fig.  20)  of  the  circle,  and 
that  its  rear  wall  rested  on  the  southernmost  arc  of  the  retaining 
wall.  Thus  it  would  be  a  structure,  about  twenty  meters  in 
length,  and  four  meters  deep,  and  as  we  have  seen  (p.  32),  was 
probably  about  four  meters  in  height.  And  as  the  colonnade 
with  the  entablature  which  it  supported  was  the  prevailing  type 
of  decoration  in  Greek  architecture,  we  may  assume  that  the 
front  of  the  Aeschylean  scene-building  also  was  so  adorned.  But 
as  this  was  not  an  ordinary  structure,  but  was  erected  to  serve 
as  a  background  for  dramatic  performances,  the  use  of  panels 

•238  This   is   clear   to   me  from  my  repeated  participation  in  the  staging  of 
plays  in  the  Greek  theater  at  the  University  of  California. 


[1131 


114  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

or  curtains  or  the  like  betvreen  the  cokimns  partly  as  a  decorative 
scheme,  partly  to  facilitate  the  change  of  the  setting,  would 
readil}^  suggest  itself.  The  appearance  and  the  use  then  of  the 
early  skene  would  thus  closely  resemble  the  Hellenistic  proskenion. 
But  what  of  the  paraskenia  ?  These  were  added,  in  my  opinion, 
for  two  reasons.  The  fii-st  was  to  increase  the  dressing-room 
facilities ;  the  second,  to  provide  a  more  effective  and  more 
ornamental  screen  to  conceal  the  movements  of  actors  as  they 
passed  behind  the  scenes  from  parodus  to  parodus.  The  need  of 
such  a  screen  is  apparent,  but  is,  strange  to  say,  often  overlooked. 
The  suggestion  made  by  Reisch,"^^  that  the  actors  would  be  suffi- 
ciently concealed  by  the  terrace-wall,  the  temple  of  Dionysus, 
the  dedicatory  monuments  and  the  trees  of  the  sacred  precinct, 
is  not  convincing.  Indeed  the  inclusion  of  the  temple  in  this  list 
is  absurd,  as  figures  16  and  17  clearly  show.  There  was  need 
rather  of  a  continuous  screen  adjoining  the  scene-building,  and 
this  would  be  most  artistically  provided  by  extending  this  building 
both  to  right  and  left  and  adorning  the  front-wall  of  each  of  these 
wings  with  a  colonnade.  This  decorative  scheme  would  be  an 
object  of  beauty  in  itself  and  moreover  would  harmonize  with 
the  columns  of  the  intermediate  structure.  The  date  when  the 
skene  was  thus  enlarged  cannot  at  present  be  determined.  But 
the  first  absolutely  certain  instance  of  the  need  of  a  screen  to 
conceal  the  actors  as  they  passed  from  parodus  to  parodus  occurs 
in  the  Eumenides  of  Aeschylus,  a  play  that  was  performed  in  the 
year  458  b.c.  At  verse  93  Orestes  accompanied  by  the  god 
Hermes  departs  from  the  temple  of  Apollo  at  Delphi  to  seek 
refuge  at  the  shrine  of  Athena  in  Athens.  Shortly  thereafter 
the  Furies,  twelve  in  number,  who  constitute  the  chorus,  follow 
in  hot  pursuit.  At  verse  235  Orestes  and  Hermes  reenter,  of 
course  from  the  side  opposite  to  that  by  which  they  had  departed, 
and  at  verse  244,  the  Furies,  tracking  their  quarry  like  hounds 
upon  the  scent.  Here  then  is  a  clear  case  of  the  use  of  a  screen 
239  Das  griechische  Theater,  pp.  194,  196. 


THE    ORIGIN   OF   THE    PROSKENION  115 

to  conceal  the  movements  of  actors,  but  it  is  not  a  proof  that  the 
paraskenia  had  ah-eady  been  erected.  I  have  stated  that  this 
example  in  the  Eumenides  is  the  earliest  absolutely  certain  in- 
stance of  the  passing  of  actors  behind  the  scenes.  But  it  was  in 
all  probabiUty  not  the  first  instance.  For  if  it  be  true,  as  most 
believe,  that  in  the  pre-Sophoclean  period  all  the  roles  in  a  play, 
except  of  course  that  of  the  chorus,  were  divided  between  two 
actors  only,  a  screen  of  some  sort  was  needed  as  early  as  the 
Suppliants  of  Aeschylus,  a  drama  that  is  usually  assigned  to  about 
the  year  490  b.c.-^"  And  the  same  is  true  also  of  the  Persians 
(472  B.C.),  the  Seven  against  Thebes  (467  b.c.)  and  probably  the 
Prometheus  Bound.  Unfortunately,  however,  none  of  these 
plays  aifords  a  solution  of  the  prol)lem.  But  as  the  ske7ie  had 
been  introduced  several  years  before  the  performance  of  the 
Oresteia  of  Aeschylus  (458  b.c),  the  paraskenia  may  have  been 
added  at  this  time.     But  this  is  purely  conjectural. 

If,  however,  the  Aeschylean  skene  was  erected  on  the  terrace 
between  the  line  connecting  the  parodi  and  the  retaining  wall 
at  the  rear,  it  is  clear  that  a  proskenion  placed  before  this  structure 
would  have  encroached  upon  the  orchestra-area.  Additions 
to  the  building,  barring  an  upper  story,  could  be  made  only  at 
the  ends,  where  we  believe  the  paraskenia  were  constructed,  or 
in  the  rear.  In  other  words,  after  the  paraskenia  had  been  added, 
the  building  developed  in  the  direction  away  from  the  auditorium 
rather  than  toward  it,  as  is  usually  assumed.  And  this  occurred, 
I  believe,  when  the  need  of  a  second  story  was  felt.  For  if  a 
proskenion  was  not  placed  in  front  of  the  skene,  and  if  the  roof 
of  the  skene  continued  to  be  used  as  a  platform,  even  after  the 
addition  of  the  upper  story,  then  clearly  the  latter  together  with 
its  substructure  was  erected  at  the  rear.     The  date  when  the 

^■w  On  the  number  of  actors  in  Greek  drama  see  Rees,  The  So-called  Eule  of 
Three  Actors  in  the  Classical  Greek  Drama  (1908)  ;  Kaffenberger,  Das  Drei- 
schausplelertjesetz  in  der  griechischen  Tratjodie  (1911).  Naturally  neither  of 
these  treatises  deals  at  length  with  the  pre-Sophoclean  period.  For  Noack's 
view  see  note  63  above. 


116  THE    GREEK   THEATER 

scene-building  was  thus  enlarged  was  probably  not  later  than 
430  B.C.  and  may  have  been  many  years  earlier.  And  it  is  per- 
haps not  unreasonable  to  conjecture  that  at  the  time  when  these 
additions  were  projected  the  position  of  the  theater  was  shifted 
and  not  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  or  in  the  Lycurgean  period. 
The  precise  date  of  this  change  however  is  not  determinable. 

Whether  this  new  portion  of  the  scene-building  extended  the 
full  length  of  the  older  structure  including  the  paraskenia  is  not 
known.  Nor  do  we  know  how  the  upper  story  (the  episkenion) 
appeared.  The  reconstruction  shown  in  figure  31  is  conjectural. 
The  early  structure  had  been  known  as  the  skene  {aK-qv-q  or 
(TK-qvaC),  and  this  designation  continued  to  be  used  of  the  entire 
scene-building  not  only  during  the  period  of  its  evolution  but  even 
after  it  had  become  a  large  and  imposing  edifice.  The  wings  at 
the  end  came  to  be  called  the  paraskenia  {vrapd,  "at  the  side  of"), 
and  the  upper  story,  the  episkenion  {e-n-L,  "upon").  The  use 
of  the  term  proskenion  (  irpo,  "before")  was  due,  I  believe,  to 
analogy  and  was  applied  to  the  original  portion,  which  was  now 
small  in  comparison  with  the  whole  and  stood  nearest  the  orches- 
tra. This  part,  hke  all  of  the  scene-building  in  the  fifth  century, 
was  constructed  of  wood.  And  even  after  the  other  parts  of 
the  building  were  made  of  stone  and  marble  this  original  portion, 
which  was  still  the  main  background  of  the  action  and  which  was 
subject  to  modification  in  accordance  with  the  exigencies  of  the 
plays,  continued  for  many  years  to  be  a  temporary,  wooden  erec- 
tion. 


INDEX 


Actors,  number  of,  115. 

Aediculae,  55,  95  ff. 

Aeschylus,  5,  43  ff. ;  theater  of,  23, 
27,  28,  31,  32,  35,  38,  112  ff.; 
Agamemnon,  28,  48,  63,  77,  89,  115; 
Choephori  {Libation-bearers),  28, 
.  72  ff. ;  Eumenides,  28,  48,  57,  65, 
74,  75,  114;  Persians,  28,  43,  44, 
52,115;  Philocteles,  77;  Prometheus 
Bound,  50,  115;  Prometheus  Un- 
bound, 50 ;  Psychostasia,  63  ;  Seven 
against  Thebes,  52,  54,  115;  Sup- 
pliants, 48,  50,  115. 

Agatharchus,  67,  82,  88. 

Alcamenes,  18. 

dvapalveiv,  14,  36  ff. 

Andocides  (De  Myst.,  38),  34. 

ApoUodorus,  77. 

Aristophanes,  Acharnians,  36,  39,  49, 
63,  71,  83  ;  Birds,  48,  49,  85 ;  Clouds, 
49,  57,  63  ;  Ecclesiazusae  {Women 
in  Council),  36,  39,  49,  59;  Frogs, 
49,  52,  70  ff.;  Knights,  36  ff. ; 
Lysistrata,  42,  49,  64,  80;  Pea^e, 
44,  60,  64;  Wasps,  36,  49,  57,  58, 
63  ;  Women  at  the  Thesmophoria,  49, 
83. 

Aristotle,  82. 

Athenaeus,  16. 

Auditorium,  1,  10,  23,  25,  35.  See 
also  Seats. 

Background,  2,  109. 

Badham,  53. 

Barnett,  29,  55,  79,  80,  85 

Bates  54. 

Bethe,  8,  16,  59,  75,  77,  80,  82,  109, 

111. 
Blass,  57,  72,  73,  74. 
Bodensteiner,  94,  111. 
Bolle,  43,  75,  90. 
Bruhn,  54. 


Butcher,  69. 
Bywater,  82. 

Capps,  36,  43,  47,  111. 

Chamonard,  59. 

Charonian  stairs,  51. 

Christ,  111. 

City  Dionysia,  program  of,  76. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  83. 

Cleophon,  18. 

Columns,  67. 

Cook,  98. 

Couve,  59. 

Croiset,  70. 

Curtain,  82. 

Cybulski,  95. 

Decharme,  63,  65,  104. 

Delian  inscriptions,  15,  59,  67,  68. 

Diazoma,  10,  23. 

Didascalia,  76,  77,  79. 

dtrjpes  e(rxa'''0'',  64. 

Dihhy,  98. 

Dion  Chrysostom,  78. 

Dionysus  Eleuthereus,  precinct  of,  4, 

9,  .34 ;   temples  of,  18,  23. 
dLcmyia,  64. 

Dorpfeld,  4,  8,  20,  80,  95,  and  passim. 
Doors,  12,  48,  49,  52. 
Dramas,  evidence  of,  43  ff . ;   types  of, 

47  ff. 
Droysen,  72. 
Dunn,  82,  95. 
Durrbach,  98,  99. 

Eccyclema,  49,  57,  75,  76,  83,  84. 

eXeos,  38. 
Engelmann,  104. 
Entrances,  2,  52. 
Episkenion,  .59,  63,  116. 
Euripides,    46 ;        Alcestis,    49,     75 ; 
Andromache,   49  ;      Andromeda,  48, 


117 


118 


INDEX 


50,  85;  Antiope,  85;  Bacchae,  54 
67  ;  Bellerophon,  60,  64  ;  Cresphontes 
56 ;  Cyclops,  49,  86 ;  Dictys,  77 
Electra,  39,  40,  48 ;  Harvesters,  77 
Hecuba,  49  ;  Heracles,  The  Mad,  42 
67,  76 ;  Hypsipyle,  45,  46,  56,  66 
Ion,  40  ff.,  44,  45,  54,  57,  66,  67 
Iphigenia  among  the  Taurians,  49 
52,  55,  56,  67;  Medea,  77,  101 
Orestes,  63  ff.,  67;  Philoctetes,  77 
Phoenician  Womeji,  54,  62,  64,  66 
[Rhesus,  47,  61]. 

Exon,  84. 

Exostra,  84. 

Felsch,  69,  73. 

Fensterbusch,  36,  37,  43,  49,  69,  71. 
Fiechter,  8,  9,  11,  13,  and  passim. 
Flickiiiger,  8,  10,  36,  81,  and  passim. 
Furtwiingler,  8,  18,  19,  25,  110. 
FurtwJingler  mid  Reichhold,  98,  99. 

Gable,  64,  65. 

Gardner,  E.  A.,  18,  19,  22,  25. 

Gardner,  P.,  45,  79,  80,  82,  88,  109. 

Gerhard,  104. 

Guhl-Koner,  104. 

Haigh,  8,  80,  89,  109,  and  passim. 

Harpocration,  16. 

Harrison,  44,  51,  58,  101,  102. 

Harzmann,  43. 

Hellenistic :  proskenion,    12,    15,    31  ; 

paraskenia,  31 ;   scene-building,  16  ; 

theater,  66. 
Hermann,  81. 

Hermon,  comic  actor,  80,  87. 
Hesychius,  5,  59. 
Heydemann,  101. 
Hoeber,  99. 
Hopken,  91. 
Holwerda,  111. 
Homolle,  15,  45,  59. 
Huddilston,  46,  98,  101. 
Hyginus,  56. 
Hyperides,  9. 

iKpia,  see  Seats. 


Jahn,  98,  104. 
Jebb,  62,  77. 
Judeich,  4,  18,  25,  34. 

Kara^alveiv,  14,  36  ff. 
Kawerau,  91. 
Kent,  70. 
Kltigmann,  101. 
KroU,  88. 

Legrand,  55,  57. 
Lenaeum,  4. 
Logeion,  64,  91. 
Lycurgus,  9. 

Machine  (ix-qxavv) ,  02. 
Mantzius,  27,  79,  80,  91. 
Market-place,  theater  in,  4. 
Mooney,  52. 

MiiUer,  25,  36,  43,  55,  and  passim. 
Murray,  53. 

Nannion,  16. 

Navarre,  79,  80. 

Neckel,  76,  85. 

Niejahr,  56,  73,  76,  81. 

Noack,  19,  20,  25,  27,  35,  88,  93,  109. 

Oehmichen,  79,  80,  82. 
Orchestra,  2,  9,  10. 
Orchestra-terrace,  21,  22. 
Overbeck,  101. 

7rd7os,  50. 

Painting,  of  scenes,  82 ;  of  scene- 
building,  67,  68  ;  Pompeian  wall- 
paintings,  etc.,  104  ff. 

Panels  (irlvaKes),  15,  87. 

Paraskenia,  12,  16,  31, 32,  111,  114, 116. 

Parodi,  2,  32,  33,  .37  ff. 

Pausanias,  9,  18,  23,  34. 

Pearson,  51,  63,  78. 

Pediment,  45,  64  ff. 

irepiaKToi,  83. 

Petersen,  8,  14,  16,  28,  44,  46,  63,  75, 
81,  110. 

Photius,  4. 

Piderit,  75. 


INDEX 


119 


Plato,  Laws,  817  c,  4. 

Plato,  comicus,  59. 

Plutarch,  56. 

Pollux,  52,  62,  64,  80,  83,  84,  87. 

Portico,  55  ff.,  95  ff. 

Prickard,  43. 

Proskenion,  4,  14,  15,  16,  31,  89,  91, 

92,  94,  107  ff..  Ill,  116. 
Prothyron,  see  Portico. 
Pseudo-Plutarch,  9. 
Puchstein,  8,   13,   15,   16,   19,  25,  82, 

94,  109,  111. 

Rayet  et  Collignon,  97. 
Rees,  36,  55,  76,  84,  98. 
Reisch,  8,  27,  36,  39,  43,  76,  77,  84, 

91,  97,  98,  114. 
Ridgeway,  74. 

Robert,  8,  29,  51,  73,  81,  and  passim. 
Roof,  63,  64. 
Rutherford,  37. 

Scaena  ductilis,  81,  90. 

Scene,  changes  of,  70  ff.,  76  ff.,  87; 
kinds  of,  47,  48. 

Scenery,  88  ff. 

Scene-building  (a-KTtvq),  1,  4,  6,  11, 
17,  59,  87,  94  ff..  Ill  ff. 

Schlie,  78. 

Schneider,  23. 

Schiibl,  69,  79,  80,  82. 

Screen  to  conceal  actors,  114. 

Sculptural  adornment,  44,  45,  67. 

Seats,  3,  5,  34. 

Seneca,  81. 

Servius,  81,  83. 

Set,  changes  of,  69  ff.,  79  flf. ;  multi- 
ple, 71  ff. 

Sharpley,  44,  60. 

Sheppard,  88. 

<jK7)vo'Ypa.(pLa,  82. 

Sophocles,  Ajax,  51,  61,  62,  74,  75, 
76 ;  A7i,dromeda,  .50,  63  ;  Ichneutae, 
51,  78,  86;  Oedipus  Coloneus,  48, 
51,  78,  85,  86,  87,  88;  Oedipus 
Tyranrj  us,  48 ;  Philoctetes,  48,  49, 
50,  60,  64,  77,  85. 

Stage,  13,  36  ff.,  109,  111. 


Stage  directions,  6. 
Starkie,  39,  71,  72,  82. 
Steps,  52  ff. 
Streit,  82,  111. 
Stuart,  3. 
Suidas,  5. 

Telesterion,  93. 

Theater,  origin,  etc.,  Iff.;  at  Athens, 
1,  4  ff.,  8,  10;  fifth-century  theater, 
20  ff.,       107  ff. ;  fourtii-century 

theater,  8  ff. ;  Roman  period,  7,  9 ; 
at  Delos,  1,  15,  59,  67,  68;  at 
Ephesus,  12,  17 ;  at  Epidaurus,  2, 
10 ;  at  Eretria,  4,  12 ;  at  Megalopo- 
lis, 15,  82;  at  Oropus,  3,  12,  1.5,  17; 
at  Priene,  4,  15,  66 ;  at  Sicyon,  15 ; 
at  Thoricus,  1,  4. 

Theologeion,  62,  63. 

Thespis.  5. 

Thrasybulus,  18. 

Thymele,  38. 

Todt,  20. 

Triglyph-frieze,  65  ff. 

Tripods,  street  of,  33,  34. 

Tucker,  72,  73. 

Unity,  of  time,  69 ;   of  place,  69  ff. 

Valckenaer,  45. 
Van  Leeuwen,  49,  59,  71,  72. 
Vase-paintings,  55,  95  ff. 
Verrall,  72,  110. 
Versakis,  9,  14. 

Vitruvius,  47,  48,  52,  59,  82,  83. 
Vogel,  98,  101,  104. 
Von  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,  20,  29, 
44,  51,  58.  69,  73,  74,  78,  79,  81,  86. 

Washburn,  22,  67 
Way,  53. 
Wecklein,  77. 
Weil,  54. 

Weissmann,  42,  43,  56. 
Wheeler,  99. 
White,  36,  39,  43. 
Windows,  58,  59. 
Winkler,  99. 
Woodhouse,  50. 


UCSOinHfRNWGlONA^^ 


LIBRARY  FACILITY 


JJ;7     000  330  858    2 


